Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Hill

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 20, 1934No. 29,830PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STONE,. Justice.

Certiora/ri to review an order of the district court dismissing the application of the petitioner for relief under the mortgage moratorium act, L. 1933, c. 339, part 1, § 4.

By her petition, the petitioner set forth her ownership of the involved real estate; that a mortgage thereon, held by respondent, had been foreclosed; and that the time for redemption would expire August 27, 1933. The petition was served and filed August 25, 1933. As far as it prays relief, it speaks in the present tense, stat ing that the petitioner “makes this application to the court for an order…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. v. M. St. P. S. S. M. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
  2. Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lillegard v. HutchinsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Petters and Co. v. Jefferson County BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  3. Swanson v. Cross Lake Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  4. Rebold v. Citizens State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  5. The Frissell Co. v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939

5 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