Newlin v. Hoyt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Martin -county to enforce specific performance by defendants of a contract for the sale and exchange of land. The case was tried before Quinn, J., who found in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Action for specific performance, in which plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appealed from an order denying a new trial. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Plaintiff was-the owner of certain real property in Cissna Park, in the state of Illinois, and defendant Charles Uplinger was the owner of certain real property situated in Martin county, this state. On November 9, 1901, the parties entered into a contract for the exchange of such properties; the plaintiff *410to convey to defendant his Cissna Park property, and defendant Up-linger to convey to plaintiff his Martin county property,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Judd v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Haupt Lumber Co. v. WestmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by9 opinions
- Byrd v. PihaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Lake Company v. MolanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Thomas v. RogersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Schwinn v. GriffithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Krohn v. DustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.