Short v. Van Dyke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Wilson J. Van Dyke, from an order of the District Court of Washington County, Wiiliston, J., made December JO, 1891, denying his motion for a new trial. Action by plaintiffs, Andrew J. Short, and Elizabeth Cover, commenced October 26, 1886, for an accounting, and for specific performance of a contract, made by defendant Wilson J. Van Dyke, January 23, 1874, with said Short.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Wilson J. Van Dyke, from an order of the District Court of Washington County, Wiiliston, J., made December JO, 1891, denying his motion for a new trial. Action by plaintiffs, Andrew J. Short, and Elizabeth Cover, commenced October 26, 1886, for an accounting, and for specific performance of a contract, made by defendant Wilson J. Van Dyke, January 23, 1874, with said Short. It was alleged that Short had assigned one-half of his interest in the contract to his coplaintiff. The wife of Van Dyke was also made defendant in the action. The following is a copy of the contract…
1Opinion of the CourtGilexllan, C. J.
The decision of this case will necessarily depend on the interpretation of the contract on which the action is brought. If it is merely a contract to convey, the cause of action was undoubtedly barred by the statute of limitations before the ac*288tion was brought. The right to bring an action for specific performance — and, if the contract is only one for conveyance, this is such an action--accrued and the action might have been brought as soon as, by the terms of the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to offer performance on his part, and demand a conveyance in this case, certainly at the end…
2Cited by21 opinions
- United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
- Forge v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- King Cattle Co. v. JosephSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
- Industrial Commission v. Arizona Power Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.