Legal Opinion

Pye v. Grunert

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 5, 1937No. 31,320PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion

Plaintiff takes the position that because when the loan was closed the 90-day period had expired within which the Stanton bank had agreed to take, in full satisfaction of its mortgage, $3,000 in bonds of the Home Owners Loan Corporation, he was at liberty to make a contract that defendant should pay the bank, by reimbursing plaintiff, for the difference between the market and par value of the bonds. Notwithstanding the expiration of this 90-day period, when the parties were notified that the loan was ready to be closed, plaintiff and defendant went to the loan corporation's office in…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pye v. GrunertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API