Legal Opinion · Dissent

Blumberg v. Taggart

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 3, 1942No. 33,163Published

1DissentPeterson, Justice

The undeniable and indisputable fact is that solely through the acts of its agent defendant received funds which he held charged with a constructive trust for the benefit of plaintiff. Because of that fact, I think that the instant case is not controlled by the rules announced by the majority, but by a well settled exception to such rules which compels decision in favor of plaintiff.

The rule, which I think is applicable here, is well settled by at least 17 of our decisions, of which the majority takes no notice, and by the overwhelming weight of authority. It is that a principal is chargeable…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian Orchard MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  2. Holden v. . New York and Erie BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  3. Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States, and Twenty-Three Other CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  4. Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  5. First National Bank v. Town of New MilfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API