Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McNeal v. Rider, 81 N.W. 830.

28 citing documents.

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
In the cases cited by defendants’ counsel (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 A. S. R. 437) it is patent that the share contract was in the nature of a joint adventure agreement whereby the landowner, continuing to retain the property rights to, and the *149 control of, the land, allowed the cropper to farm it, and in return therefor allowed him to have a share of the crops.
First National Bank v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. 214 N.W. 288 Minn. 1927
First National Bank v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. 214 N.W. 288 Minn. 1927
McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , , 79 Am.
Griffin v. Minnesota Sugar Company 202 N.W. 445 Minn. 1925
Griffin v. Minnesota Sugar Company 202 N.W. 445 Minn. 1925
It would be more appropriate to attempt to classify it with the contract in McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , , 79 Am.
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.
Nelson v. McDonald 191 N.W. 281 Minn. 1922
Nelson v. McDonald 191 N.W. 281 Minn. 1922
McDonald Case In 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
But appellant contends that since the decision of McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , , 79 Am.
McCauley v. Wuest 125 N.W. 1021 Minn. 1910
McCauley v. Wuest 125 N.W. 1021 Minn. 1910
The decisions in McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , , 79 Am.
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.
Agne v. Skewis-Moen Co. 107 N.W. 415 Minn. 1906
Agne v. Skewis-Moen Co. 107 N.W. 415 Minn. 1906
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 , .
Ward v. Rippe 100 N.W. 386 Minn. 1904
Ward v. Rippe 100 N.W. 386 Minn. 1904
The case turns upon the construction to be given that clause of the lease above quoted, and is controlled by Merrill v. Ressler, 37 Minn. 82 , , and McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153 , .