Soukup v. Wenisch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtDibble, J.
Action to enforce a vendor’s lien. There were findings for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
On May 4, 1920, Wenzel Soukup, a brother of the plaintiff, conveyed real property in New Ulm to the defendant Frank Wenisch. The consideration was $3,500, all of which Wenzel Soukup received. Wenisch paid $2,100 of his own money, and obtained from the plaintiff $1,400 with which he paid the balance and for which he gave the plaintiff his note at 5 per cent. For this $1,400 the plaintiff claims a vendor’s lien.
The doctrine that a vendor has a lien…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sprague v. . CochranNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Chapman v. AbrahamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
- Irvine v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Hammond v. PeytonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Hughes v. MullaneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kingery v. KingerySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- First Construction Credit, Inc. v. Simonson Lumber of Waite Park, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
- Brooks v. ThorneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Schaefer v. Deppe (In re Deppe)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 1997