DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Strangeway v. Eisenman, 71 N.W. 617.

29 citing documents.

  • Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Inc. 32 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1948
  • Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Inc. 32 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1948
    In Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395, 398 , , decided in 1897, Mr. Justice Mitchell said: «« * pf0 general rule can be laid down, applicable to all cases of agreements of this kind, because the precise nature of the interest or title between the contracting parties is largely a question of their intention, as expressed in the language t
  • Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Canby Investment Co. 251 N.W. 129 Minn. 1933
  • Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Canby Investment Co. 251 N.W. 129 Minn. 1933
    “No general rule can be laid down, applicable to all cases of agreements of this kind, because the precise nature of the interest or title between the contracting parties is largely a question of their intention, as expressed in the language they have used, and hence must depend upon the particular provisions of the contract itself.” Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395, 398 , .
  • Clark v. Cargill Elevator Co. 197 N.W. 845 Minn. 1924
  • Clark v. Cargill Elevator Co. 197 N.W. 845 Minn. 1924
    Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82 , ; Avery v. Stewart, 75 Minn. 106 , , ; McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , , 79 Am.
  • Ash Creek State Bank v. Zwart 196 N.W. 935 Minn. 1924
  • Ash Creek State Bank v. Zwart 196 N.W. 935 Minn. 1924
    504; Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82 , ; McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , , 79 Am.
  • First National Bank v. Sateren 188 N.W. 62 Minn. 1922
  • First National Bank v. Sateren 188 N.W. 62 Minn. 1922
    437, the Porter case is no longer-a precedent, and that the instrument in question is a lease on shares, so that Lindemoen had a mortgageable interest in the crops to be raised under the holding in the McNeal case and others, such as Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82 , ; Denison v. Sawyer, 95 Minn. 417 , .
  • State ex rel. Gillilian v. Municipal Court 143 N.W. 978 Minn. 1913
  • State ex rel. Gillilian v. Municipal Court 143 N.W. 978 Minn. 1913
    504; Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; 2 Tiffany, Landlord and Tenant, § 253; 1 Tiffany, Real Prop.
  • Johnson v. Stone 126 N.W. 720 Minn. 1910
  • Johnson v. Stone 126 N.W. 720 Minn. 1910
    the case of Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , , and Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82 , .
  • Prudoehl v. Randall 121 N.W. 913 Minn. 1909
  • Prudoehl v. Randall 121 N.W. 913 Minn. 1909
    See Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82 , ; Avery v. Stewart, 75 Minn. 106 , , ; McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , , 79 Am.
  • Rector v. Anderson 104 N.W. 884 Minn. 1905
  • Rector v. Anderson 104 N.W. 884 Minn. 1905
    The contract between the plaintiff and defendant Anderson for farming the land by the plaintiff for a share of the crop was, so far as here material, substantially like those construed in the cases of Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Avery v. Stewart, 75 Minn. 106 , , , and McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , .
  • Denison v. Sawyer 104 N.W. 305 Minn. 1905
  • Denison v. Sawyer 104 N.W. 305 Minn. 1905
    McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , ; Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82, ; Avery v. Stewart, 75 Minn. 106 , , .
  • Graves v. Walter 101 N.W. 297 Minn. 1904
  • Graves v. Walter 101 N.W. 297 Minn. 1904
    The contract was substantially like those construed and considered in the cases of Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 83 , ; Avery v. Stewart, 75 Minn. 106 , , ; and McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , .
  • Hanson v. Diamond Iron Mining Co. 92 N.W. 447 Minn. 1902
  • McNeal v. Rider 81 N.W. 830 Minn. 1900
  • McNeal v. Rider 81 N.W. 830 Minn. 1900
    This contract is in the form of, and substantially similar to, those considered and construed in Wright v. Larson, 51 Minn. 321 , ; Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , ; Anderson v. Liston, 69 Minn. 82 , ; and Avery v. Stewart, 75 Minn. 106 , .
  • Prouty v. Barlow 76 N.W. 946 Minn. 1898
  • Prouty v. Barlow 76 N.W. 946 Minn. 1898
    They rely, in support of the proposition that the parties were tenants in common, upon the case of Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , .
  • Anderson v. Liston 72 N.W. 52 Minn. 1897
  • Anderson v. Liston 72 N.W. 52 Minn. 1897
    was in all material respects a copy of the contract which we considered and construed in Strangeway v. Eisenman, 68 Minn. 395 , .