Towlerton v. Davidson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. I. — The Court erred in holding the agreement between Dr. Paterson and Towlerton void as being by parol. Towlerton had partly performed by entering into possession and making improvements, and paid in work and taxes some of the consideration money. That takes the case out of the statute on the ground of part performance.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. I. — The Court erred in holding the agreement between Dr. Paterson and Towlerton void as being by parol. Towlerton had partly performed by entering into possession and making improvements, and paid in work and taxes some of the consideration money. That takes the case out of the statute on the ground of part performance. Seager vs. Burns, 4 Minn., 141. II. — The final agreement of Davidson was not without consideration as is assumed as a conclusion by the Court below. 1. — The agreement between Paterson and Towlerton was void, being by parol and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Atwatek, J.
This was an action of ejectment brought by the Defendant in Error to recover possession of part of lot two in block four in Paterson’s addition to St. Paul. The Plaintiff alleged title in fee in himself, and that the Defendant wrongfully and unlawfully withheld possession from him.
The answer admitted the principal allegations of the complaint, and set up a verbal promise on the part of Davidson to deed him forty by fifty feet of said lot, at a time when Davidson had not title, but was negotiating for the same, and also such promise from Andrew B. Paterson, a former…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Vaule v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896