Russell v. Schurmier
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EEOM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities by Appellant’s counsel. I. The parol testimony objected to by Appellant’s counsel should have been rejected as not competent to establish a contract relative to real estate. II.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EEOM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities by Appellant’s counsel. I. The parol testimony objected to by Appellant’s counsel should have been rejected as not competent to establish a contract relative to real estate. II. The allowing of the Plaintiff to amend his complaint after ho had rested, and after Defendant’s counsel had summed up to the jury, such amendment materially changing the complaint and not conforming it to any fact proved, was unauthorized by statute or the course of practice, and was an abuse of legal discretion. Comp. Stats., pp. 543-4, sec. 86,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Atwater, J.
This was an action brought by Respondent to recover money paid on a parol contract to purchase lands. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, with three, other persons, entered into a contract with Defendant for the purchase of fifty-two acres of land, at sixty-five dollars an acre; that the Defendant was to have the land surveyed and sub-divided into four parcels of thirteen acres each, and that the Defendant was to give to each of the parties a separate bond, for conveyance, of the premises, upon payment of the several notes of the parties, to be executed for the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McClane v. WhiteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ferguson v. KumlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- Steele v. BondSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Bartleson v. MunsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Radley v. O'LearySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Seeger v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.