Dickinson Co. v. Fitterling
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by Elias Fitterling from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, Smith, J., disallowing his claim against the Dickinson Company, an insolvent.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
The appellant, Fitterling, is, and during all the times herein mentioned was, the owner of a certain tract of land fronting on a business street in Minneapolis. In June, 1890, he as one party, the firm of Dickinson & Cunnington as another party, and one Dunham as. another party, entered into an agreement whereby Fitterling agreed to lease said tract to the other two parties for the term of ten years from October 1, 1890, and whereby said last two parties agreed to-erect a building on said land, and to pay said Fitterling $125 a month each, payable monthly, and to pay one-half each of all…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Frank v. . N.Y., L.E. W.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Frank v. New York, Lake Erie & Western RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Cross v. UpsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Wittman v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Ecker v. Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
3Cited by14 opinions
- Gillette Bros. v. Aristocrat Restaurant, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Abbott v. BOB'S U-DRIVEOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- Weintraub v. WeingartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- O'Neil v. A. F. Oys & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Montesano Lum. & Mfg. Co. v. Portland Iron WorksOregon Supreme Court · 1920
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.