Legal Opinion
McClung v. Condit
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 23, 1880PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Appeal by defendant Condit from a judgment of the municipal court of St. Paul, in an action brought against him and one Radcliff.
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
The written lease upon which this action is-founded is as follows:
“I have leased to A. M. Radcliff, and A. G. Manson, and. A. D. Condit, the store-room in MeClung’s Block, in St. Paul, Minn., lately occupied by Sidney & Co., for two years, from. *46May 1, 1877, at four hundred dollars rent the first year, and four hundred and fifty the second year, payable in equal monthly instalments, and for the next two months from this date for twenty dollars per month, for which they are jointly and severally liable.
“St. Paul, March 1, 1877.
[Signed] “J. W. McClung.”
“We accept the above lease on the terms…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Augir v. RyanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- McCreery v. FullerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Sheets v. RamerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Boom v. St. Paul Foundry & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- White v. HewittSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.