McKinney v. Harvie
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs brought this action in the municipal court of Duluth, to recover money paid on a contract of sale of land. The only written memorandum of the sale was the receipt which is recited in full in the opinion. The action was tried by a jury, and defendant had a verdict. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The receipt set forth in the complaint, as follows: “Deceived'of F. W. McKinney one hundred dollars in part-payment of lot seventy-six, (76,) block thirty-two, (32,) Duluth, Minn., third division, ” — and signed by defendant, was open to explanation, and the defendant was properly permitted to show the transactions connected with it, and that in the matter of the purchase of the lot the plaintiffs were acting as the agents of a third party, and paid the money for him. It is not a contract for the sale or purchase of land, and it is subject to be explained and supplemented by evidence…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Eighmie v. . TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Ryan v. . WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Ketchum & Sweet v. EvertsonNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Filkins v. . WhylandNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Barickman v. KuykendallIndiana Supreme Court · 1841
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Sanders v. BrockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- York v. WashburnCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Malmberg v. BaughUtah Supreme Court · 1923
- Norris v. LetchworthMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Clifton v. WillsonMontana Supreme Court · 1913
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.