Boyd v. Hallowell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action, in the district court for Hennepin county against members of t-he firm of M. L. Hallowell, Jr., & Co., and Samuel P. Snider, upon four promissory notes made by the firm and indorsed by Snider. The nature of the defense is stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Action, in the district court for Hennepin county against members of t-he firm of M. L. Hallowell, Jr., & Co., and Samuel P. Snider, upon four promissory notes made by the firm and indorsed by Snider. The nature of the defense is stated in the opinion. The answer alleged a verbal agreement about December 28, 1891, by which Snider agreed to convey to John Boyd a certain lot in Minneapolis, called the “Hart Property,” subject to an incumbrance of $7,000, and a certain other parcel of land, called the “Johnson Property,” subject to an incumbrance of $9,000; that on January 2, 1892, at the…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
This was an action to recover upon certain promissory notes. The defense was that, after a former action had been *227brought on the notes, negotiations were entered into which resulted in the execution of a written contract under which the action was dismissed, and by which defendant Snider undertook and agreed to convey, or cause to be conveyed, to one of the plaintiffs, John Boyd, two pieces of real estate in the city of Minneapolis (one known as the “Hart,” the other as the “Johnson,” property) by good title, free and clear from all incumbrances, excepting an existing mortgage and taxes due…
2Cited by2 opinions
- 451 Corp. v. Pension System for Policemen & FiremenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- White Stone Partners, LP v. Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1997