Legal Opinion

Suchaneck v. Smith

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 4, 1890PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of Minneapolis.

1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.

The plaintiff, by'lease in- writing, demised the premises described in the complaint to the defendant for the term of five years from May 1, 1886, at a stipulated rental, and defendant, at the date thereof, entered into possession under the lease. Subsequently the defendant made default in the payment of rent overdue, and also in the payment of taxes which, by the terms of the lease, he was bound to pay. After notice duly served, plaintiff demanded possession of the premises, which being refused, he brought this action in the municipal court of Minneapolis, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 84, § 11.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Woodcock v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  2. Brown v. BrackettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Alworth v. GordonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  2. First Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Lancaster Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  3. Priordale Mall Investors v. FarringtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Seeger v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
  5. Priordale Mall Investors v. FarringtonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API