Sonstiby v. Keeley
District Court, D. Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtMcCrary, C. J.
I have grave doubts as to the propriety of attempting to apply to a case at law the principle invoked by counsel for defendant in this case. That principle is «that where a vendee buys in good faith, and without notice of fraud on the part of the vendor, and pays a part only of the consideration, agreeing to pay the re-, mainder at a future day, if, before such remainder is paid, he receives .notice of the vendor’s fraud, he will be protected only to the amount actually paid before notice. No doubt this is sound principle in equity; but can it be applied by a court of law? Can such a court…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Wayman v. SouthardSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Luther v. BordenSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
- Gelpcke v. DubuqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stoebner v. Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. (In re Polaroid Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 2012