Legal Opinion

Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 24, 1941No. Nos. 32,552, 32,553PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1 Reported in 296 N.W. 911. Two actions, one to foreclose a conditional sale contract covering an automobile and the other in replevin to recover possession thereof as an incident of the foreclosure. The cases were tried together and resulted in findings adverse to plaintiff in the replevin case. The court dismissed the foreclosure case since "the outcome of the replevin action" determined that plaintiff "has nothing to foreclose." Motions for amended findings or a new trial were denied (except for certain amendments of the findings in the replevin action not material here), whereupon…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Smith v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  2. Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  3. Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  4. Stein v. SwensenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
  5. Jordan v. HumphreySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Rathbun v. WT Grant CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  2. Barton v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  3. Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  4. Citizen's National Bank of Willmar v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  5. Seebold v. EustermannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API