Legal Opinion
Quinn v. Champagne
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 27, 1888PublishedCited by 9 opinions
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgrpent of the district court for St. Louis county, where the action was tried by Stearns, J.
1Opinion of the Court
Dickinson, J.1
This action is to compel a specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of the northwest quarter of section 1, in township 49 north, of range 15 west, in the county of St. Louis in this state. The principal question presented upon this appeal relates to the sufficiency of the written memorandum of the contract as respects the description of the property. This instrument is as follows :
*323“Duluth, Minn., Dec. 20, 1886.
“Bec’.d of John J. Quinn one hundred dollars, being part purchase price of the N. W. J of sec. 1, Tp. 49, range 15. Price of same, $5,000 cash, accordihg…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hurley v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Mead v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Russell v. SweezeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Scanlan v. GeddesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Beal v. BlairSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sinclair v. . PurdyNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Flegel v. DowlingOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Allen v. GilkisonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921
- Doyle v. WohlrabeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Gregory Co. v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.