Legal Opinion

Rudolphi v. Wright

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 12, 1913No. Nos. 18,311—(133)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Action in the district court for Brown county to cancel- a deed and to adjudge plaintiffs to be the owners in fee simple of the land described therein. The answer set up that the transaction between the parties was completed by the execution and delivery of the deeds by each to the other; that plaintiffs acquiesced in the transaction for more than six months before beginning the action and that they are concluded from prosecuting it by their laches.

Read the full summary

Action in the district court for Brown county to cancel- a deed and to adjudge plaintiffs to be the owners in fee simple of the land described therein. The answer set up that the transaction between the parties was completed by the execution and delivery of the deeds by each to the other; that plaintiffs acquiesced in the transaction for more than six months before beginning the action and that they are concluded from prosecuting it by their laches. The answer also alleged that at the time of the exchange plaintiffs had full knowledge of the land conveyed to them. The case was tried before…

1Opinion of the Court

Dibell, O.

This action is brought to cancel a deed conveying certain property in the city of New Ulm, made by the plaintiffs to the defendant Joseph A. Wright, upon the ground of fraud. The deed was given upon an exchange of New Ulm city property for Wisconsin lands. The court found for the plaintiffs and the defendants appeal from the judgment. Henry Eudolphi and Joseph A. Wright are the two active parties, the other two being their respective wives.

1. The evidence sufficiently supports the finding of the trial court that the deed made by the plaintiffs was procured by fraud. The New Ulm…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brown v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
  2. Schmeisser v. AlbinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Meland v. YoungbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  2. Baylies v. Vanden BoomWyoming Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Kraus v. National Bank of Commerce of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  4. Woodward v. Western Canada Colonization Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  5. McCoun v. ShipmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920

3 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