Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nickerson v. Crawford, 77 N.W. 292.

30 citing documents.

Mark W. Tibbals v. Kerry G. Tibbals Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Mark W. Tibbals v. Kerry G. Tibbals Minn. Ct. App. 2014
And, in Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366, 368, 77 N.W.
Mortgage Associates, Inc. v. Duax 162 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1968
Mortgage Associates, Inc. v. Duax 162 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1968
This principle is articulated in Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366, 370 , , where the court, through Mr. Justice Mitchell, said: “There is nothing in the taking, renewing or discounting defendants’ notes for the price of the lumber which at all affects the case.
Wallace T. Bruce, Inc. v. Najarian 81 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
Wallace T. Bruce, Inc. v. Najarian 81 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1957
As stated in Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , the constitutional provisos applicable to the present situation are clearly self-executing and require no legislation to carry them into effect.
Curran v. Nash 29 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1947
Curran v. Nash 29 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1947
In Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366, 369 , , 73 A. S. R. 354, where the claim was that this provision of the constitution created a lien, the court said: “* * * p>ut the constitution furnishes no basis for any such claim.
Anderson v. Johnson 293 N.W. 131 Minn. 1940
Anderson v. Johnson 293 N.W. 131 Minn. 1940
fs had an ample remedy under the mechanics’ lien law against this homestead and failed to avail themselves thereof; but they also have other remedies since the constitution was amended by art. 1, § 12, subjecting homesteads to “seizure and sale for any debts incurred to any person for work done or materials furnished in the construction, repair, or improvement of the same.” Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , 73 A. S. R. 354; Bagley v. Pennington, *155 76 Minn. 226 , , 77 A. S. R. 637; Hasey
State ex rel. Peterson v. Probate Court 268 N.W. 707 Minn. 1936
In Re Estate of Peterson 268 N.W. 707 Minn. 1936
State ex rel. Peterson v. Probate Court 268 N.W. 707 Minn. 1936
Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366, 369 , , 73 A. S. R. 354.
In Re Estate of Peterson 268 N.W. 707 Minn. 1936
Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , 369 , 77 N.W.
Aase v. Langston 220 N.W. 421 Minn. 1928
Aase v. Langston 220 N.W. 421 Minn. 1928
Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , 73 A. S. R. 354; Bagley v. Pennington, 76 Minn. 226 , 78 N. W, 1113, 77 A. S. R. 637; H. E. Westerman Lbr.
H. E. Westerman Lumber Co. v. Raschke 215 N.W. 197 Minn. 1927
H. E. Westerman Lumber Co. v. Raschke 215 N.W. 197 Minn. 1927
Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , *199 73 A. S. R. 354.
H. E. Westerman Lumber Co. v. Raschke 208 N.W. 960 Minn. 1926
H. E. Westerman Lumber Co. v. Raschke 208 N.W. 960 Minn. 1926
Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , 73 Am.
Gale v. Hopkins 206 N.W. 164 Minn. 1925
Gale v. Hopkins 206 N.W. 164 Minn. 1925
Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , 73 Am.
Gregory Co. v. Cale 133 N.W. 75 Minn. 1911
Gregory Co. v. Cale 133 N.W. 75 Minn. 1911
546; Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , 73 Am.
Hasey v. McMullen 123 N.W. 1078 Minn. 1909
Hasey v. McMullen 123 N.W. 1078 Minn. 1909
Or, as expressed in Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , 13 Am.
Brown v. Hughes 94 N.W. 438 Minn. 1903
Brown v. Hughes 94 N.W. 438 Minn. 1903
In the one case the right to collect would accrue immediately upon the adoption of the amendment, it being self-executing (Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , ), while in the other such right would accrue upon the docketing of the judgment, being in abeyance prior'thereto.
Bagley v. Pennington 78 N.W. 1113 Minn. 1899
Bagley v. Pennington 78 N.W. 1113 Minn. 1899
Only one question is here raised which has not been effectually disposed of by Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366 , , and that question arises by reason of a mere inadvertence in the language used in that *227 case.