Legal Opinion

Soukup v. Wenisch

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 1925No. 24, 749PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Sprague v. . CochranNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Chapman v. AbrahamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
  3. Irvine v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
  4. Hammond v. PeytonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
  5. Hughes v. MullaneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kingery v. KingerySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  2. First Construction Credit, Inc. v. Simonson Lumber of Waite Park, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
  3. Brooks v. ThorneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  4. Schaefer v. Deppe (In re Deppe)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API