Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 83 N.W. 346.

32 citing documents.

Senn v. Youngstedt 589 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Senn v. Youngstedt 589 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Ripeness Both parties agree that Canosia Township v. Grand Lake Township, 80 Minn. 357, 359 , 83 N.W.
Lametti v. Peter Lametti Construction Co. 232 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1975
Lametti v. Peter Lametti Construction Co. 232 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1975
Thus, the requirement that the party from whom contribution is sought must have secured a release by the payment of the party seeking contribution, referred to in Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358 , and Town *77 ship of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , has been met.
Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
See, Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , ; Merrimac Min.
American Automobile Insurance v. Molling 57 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1953
American Automobile Insurance v. Molling 57 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1953
Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357, 359 , .
Gustafson v. Johnson 51 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1952
Gustafson v. Johnson 51 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1952
In Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357, 359 , , we said: «* * ‘Contribution’ is defined as a payment made by each, or by any, of several having a common interest of liability of his share in the loss suffered, or in the money necessarily paid by one of the parties in behalf of the others.
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 50 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1951
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 50 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1951
Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
Merrimac Mining Co. v. Gross 12 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1943
Hoverson v. Hoverson 12 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1943
Merrimac Mining Co. v. Gross 12 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1943
Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , ; Bolles v. Boyer, supra.
Hoverson v. Hoverson 12 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1943
Since contribution does not mature until the party owing a common liability has paid more than his just share of the obligation, Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , , and since Benjamin has refused to disclose what his income was, he thereby necessarily failed to show that he has paid more than his just proportion; hence, his claim to contribution must fall.
Miller v. Pouliot 271 N.W. 818 Minn. 1937
Miller v. Pouliot 271 N.W. 818 Minn. 1937
See Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , ; Id., 87 Minn. 347 , .
Waldref v. Dow 214 N.W. 767 Minn. 1927
Waldref v. Dow 214 N.W. 767 Minn. 1927
Van Brunt v. Gordon, 53 Minn. 227 , ; Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , ; Bolles v. Boyer, 141 Minn. 404 , .
Bolles v. Boyer 170 N.W. 229 Minn. 1919
Bolles v. Boyer 170 N.W. 229 Minn. 1919
Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , ; Hard v. Mingle, 206 N. Y. 179 , 99 N. E. 542 , 42 L.R.A.
County of Beltrami v. County of Clearwater 124 N.W. 372 Minn. 1910
County of Beltrami v. County of Clearwater 124 N.W. 372 Minn. 1910
Mandamus is the proper remedy.” It is true that in Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , at page 360, , at page 348, the court said: “We do not wish to be understood as saying that plaintiff was not entitled to judgment for defendant town’s share of the amount already paid by it upon the debt, and it is possible that the respective liabilities of these towns could have been ascertained and
Town of Kettle River v. Town of Bruno 118 N.W. 63 Minn. 1908
Town of Kettle River v. Town of Bruno 118 N.W. 63 Minn. 1908
Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , ; Town of Humboldt v. City of Barnesville, 83 Minn. 219 , ; Rumsey v. Sauk Centre Town, 59 Minn. 316 , , In this view we are clear that the town of Norman is not a necessary party to the action.
Town of Partridge v. Dennie 117 N.W. 234 Minn. 1908
Town of Partridge v. Dennie 117 N.W. 234 Minn. 1908
Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , .
Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake 92 N.W. 215 Minn. 1902
Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake 92 N.W. 215 Minn. 1902
The cause was tried in the court below, and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for the sum of $2,833.24, from which an appeal was taken to this court ( 80 Minn. 357 , ), when the judgment was reversed, and the cause *348 remanded to tbe district court tor “further proceedings, if tbe plaintiff be so advised.” No proceedings were thereafter bad in tbe district court by either party until March 1, 1902, — about two years after tbe cause was remanded from this court, —
State ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. Demann 86 N.W. 352 Minn. 1901
State ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. Demann 86 N.W. 352 Minn. 1901
State v. City of Lake City, 25 Minn. 404 ; City of Winona v. School Dist., 40 Minn. 13 , ; Rumsey v. Sauk Centre Town, 59 Minn. 316 , ; Township of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , .