Cargill v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants Edward Thompson and Ara D. Sprague, from an order of the District Court of Houston County, John V/hy~ took, J. made November 24, 1893, denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs, Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants Edward Thompson and Ara D. Sprague, from an order of the District Court of Houston County, John V/hy~ took, J. made November 24, 1893, denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs, Wm. W. Cargill and Samuel D. Cargill, complained that defendant Thompson and wife, being the owners of a dam and water power at Hokah on Eoot Eiver, on April 27, 1872, leased to White Bros, for twenty years, with right of renewal, the exclusive right to use therefrom 7,505 cubic feet of water per minute at a six foot head, they to pay $500 yearly rent. That on April 8, 1879, Thompson…
1Dissent
Canty, J.,
(dissenting.) I agree with the majority of the court that, in this case, covenants which run with the land will not run with the rent alone. Whether such covenants will run with rent alone is a mooted question. See Wood, Landl. & Ten. § 310. In the cases in which it has been held that such covenants will run with the rent alone, the assignment of the rent gave the assignee as complete control during the term for which the rent was assigned as the assignor could give him. It put the assignee in the shoes of the landlord as completely as possible without a conveyance of the reversion.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rogers v. BentonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Palmer v. OakleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1847
- Cargill v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Jones v. RigbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Pace v. ChadderdonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860