Legal Opinion
Harrington v. Fairchild
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 18, 1952No. 35,565PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Magney, Justice.
On the 18th day of January 1941, one Ralph Harrington sold to defendant, Philip Fairchild, his tailoring business in Minneapolis for the sum of $50,000. The contract of sale, designated “Bill of Sale,” reads in part as follows:
“In consideration of the sum of fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollars * * *, I, Ralph Harrington * * * hereby set over, transfer, sell and assign to Philip Fairchild * * * all my right, title and interest * * * in and to the merchant tailoring establishment owned by me individually and operated under the name ‘Ralph Harrington’ * * *.
“It is understood and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Smith v. HavelandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- Seiz v. Citizens Pure Ice Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- County Board of Education for Unorganized Territory v. BorgenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Skowron v. SkowronWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Holiday Acres No. 3 v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Minneapolis Federation of Men Teachers v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- State v. JosephCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996