Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cornish, Curtis & Greene Co. v. Marty, 79 N.W. 507.

16 citing documents.

Security State Bank of Aitkin v. Morlock 355 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Security State Bank of Aitkin v. Morlock 355 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Cornish, Curtis & Greene Co. v. Marty, 76 Minn. 493 , 79 N.W.
General Underwriters, Inc. v. Kline 46 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1951
General Underwriters, Inc. v. Kline 46 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1951
2 Rohrer v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 309 (407); Haubrick v. Johnston, 23 Minn. 237 ; Anderson v. Reardon, 46 Minn. 185 , ; Cornish, Curtis & Greene Co. v. Marty, 76 Minn. 493 , ; cf. Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co. 176 Minn. 315 , , 63 A. L. R. 210.
In Re Estate of Martin 247 N.W. 515 Minn. 1933
It matters not whether they are to be considered, like the district court (Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513, 517 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co. 223 N.W. 614 Minn. 1929
Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co. 223 N.W. 614 Minn. 1929
Anderson v. Reardon, 46 Minn. 185 , ; Cornish, Curtis & Greene Co. v. Marty, 76 Minn. 493 , ; Jackson v. Sevatson, 79 Minn. 275 , .
State Ex Rel. v. District Court of Ramsey County 210 N.W. 405 Minn. 1926
Under the statute, G. S. 1923, § 9207, and the construction put upon it in Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513 , , and Kommer v. Harrington, 83 Minn. 114 , , such an action must be tried in the county in which the real estate or some part thereof is situated, unless under and in accordance with the provisions of the statute the court changes the place of trial to another county or both parties consent to try it in a
In Re Estate of Davidson 210 N.W. 40 Minn. 1926
Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513 (517), ; Dun.
State Ex Rel. Nyquist v. District Court of Swift County 205 N.W. 284 Minn. 1925
Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513 , ; State ex rel.
State ex rel. Weld v. District Court of Blue Earth County 178 N.W. 1004 Minn. 1920
Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513 , , states: “Inasmuch as the general rule is that actions must be brought and tried where the parties reside, and that they must be brought and tried where the subject matter is situated is the exception to the rule, it has been frequently held that, to bring the case within the exception, the subject matter must be who
State ex rel. Lijeski v. District Court 139 N.W. 613 Minn. 1913
In Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513 , , it is said: “We are quite clear that if all the lands sold at the administrator’s sale were still held by the original purchasers, and the only relief, asked was to compel them to reconvey the lands, the action would have to be brought in a county where some part of the situated lands is situate.” The primary object
State ex rel. Ballord-Trimble Lumber Co. v. District Court 139 N.W. 135 Minn. 1912
Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513 , ; Kommer v. Harrington, 83 Minn. 114 , ; State v. District Court of Chippewa County, 85 Minn. 283 , ; State v. District Court of Pine County, 94 Minn. 370 , , 3 An.
State ex rel. Barrett v. District Court 102 N.W. 869 Minn. 1905
Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513, 517 , .
State ex rel. Child v. District Court of Chippewa County 88 N.W. 755 Minn. 1902
As having a bearing on the present question, we have been referred to Smith v. Barr, 76 Minn. 513 , , and Kommer v. Harrington, 83 Minn. 114 , .
Smith v. Barr 86 N.W. 342 Minn. 1901