Legal Opinion

Bringgold v. Stucky

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 20, 1925No. 24,462PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDibeel, J.

Action for an accounting. There were findings and judgment fcr the defendants. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

On July 3, 1920, one Feigal, the owner of a farm of 190 acres in Dodge county, referred to in the record as the Erath farm, entered into a contract of sale with the plaintiff and the defendants. The sale price was $20,500 to be paid on October 1, 1920. The vendees did not make the payment. On October 8, 1920, Feigal gave notice, pursuant to the statute, of the cancelation of the contract. The registration tax was not paid. The contract is admitted in the pleadings. It is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Saunders v. McDonoughSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  2. Goss v. LaninSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
  3. Irvine v. CampbellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  4. Church v. OdellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  5. Mathwig v. StrandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dutton v. BarnesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
  2. Vought v. PorterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  3. Hewitt v. HewittWashington Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Walrath v. CushingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API