DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Merrill v. Pike, 102 N.W. 393.

26 citing documents.

  • Clark v. Gronland 23 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1946
  • Clark v. Gronland 23 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1946
    This fact differentiates the present case from Valley v. Crookston Lumber Co. 128 Minn. 387 , , and brings it within the rule applied in Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , , and Marple v. Minneapolis & St.
  • Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
  • Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
  • Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
    887 ; Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , 102 N.W.
  • Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
    Co. 67 Minn. 74 , ; Schus v. Powers-Simpson Co. 85 Minn. 447 , , 69 L. R. A. 887; Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , ; Erickson v. Northwest Paper Co. 95 Minn. 356 , ; Peterson v. C. G. W. Ry.
  • Althoff v. Torrison 167 N.W. 119 Minn. 1918
  • Althoff v. Torrison 167 N.W. 119 Minn. 1918
    This fact differentiates the present case from Valley v. Crookston Lumber Co. 128 Minn. 387 , , and brings it within the rule applied in Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , , and Marple v. Minneapolis & St.
  • Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 137 N.W. 176 Minn. 1912
  • Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 137 N.W. 176 Minn. 1912
    Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , ; Marple v. Minneapolis & St.
  • Marple v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 132 N.W. 333 Minn. 1911
  • Marple v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 132 N.W. 333 Minn. 1911
    Tbe party guilty of tbe fraud is not entitled to anything more than substantial justice and a fair opportunity to receive what be parted with.” Tbe idea of applying the rule so as to do substantial justice, not to shield tbe party guilty of the fraud, was carried out in Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , , where it was .held that plaintiff need not tender a return of tbe money received after being notified by tbe answer of defendant’s claim of a settlement.
  • Johnson v. St. Paul Foundry Co. 128 N.W. 293 Minn. 1910
  • Johnson v. St. Paul Foundry Co. 128 N.W. 293 Minn. 1910
    Hagerty v. Evans, 87 Minn. 435 , ; Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , ; Johnson v. Lindahl, 106 Minn. 382 , .
  • Gay v. Kelley 123 N.W. 295 Minn. 1909
  • Gay v. Kelley 123 N.W. 295 Minn. 1909
    This decision was followed in Berg v. Olson, 88 Minn. 392 , ; Fitger v. Guthrie, 89 Minn. 330 , ; Hillestad v. Lee, 91 Minn. 335, 336 , ; Owens v. Savage, 93 Minn. 468 , ; Briggs v. Rutherford, 94 Minn. 23 , ; Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , ; Sather v. Sexton, 101 Minn. 544 , .
  • Sundvall v. Interstate Iron Co. 116 N.W. 1118 Minn. 1908
  • Sundvall v. Interstate Iron Co. 116 N.W. 1118 Minn. 1908
    Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , ; Erickson v. Northwest Paper Co., 95 Minn. 356 , ; Christianson v. Chicago, St.
  • Sather v. Sexton 112 N.W. 1142 Minn. 1907
  • Sather v. Sexton 112 N.W. 1142 Minn. 1907
    7; Fitger v. Guthrie, 89 Minn. 330 ; Owens v. Savage, 93 Minn. 468 ; Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 ; Kolander v. Dunn, 95 Minn. 422 ; Hoatson v. McDonald, 97 Minn. 201 .
  • Hoatson v. McDonald 106 N.W. 311 Minn. 1906
  • Hoatson v. McDonald 106 N.W. 311 Minn. 1906
    669 ; Berg v. Olson, 88 Minn. 392 , ; Fitger v. Guthrie, 89 Minn. 330 , ; Owens v. Savage, 93 Minn. 468 , ; Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , ; Kolander v. Dunn, 95 Minn. 422 , .
  • Kolander v. Dunn 104 N.W. 371 Minn. 1905
  • Kolander v. Dunn 104 N.W. 371 Minn. 1905
    This holding was followed in Berg v. Olson, 88 Minn. 392 , , and Fitger v. Guthrie, 89 Minn. 330 , , where the statute is fully discussed; Owens v. Savage, 93 Minn. 468 , ; Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , ; and perhaps other cases.
  • Erickson v. Northwest Paper Co. 104 N.W. 291 Minn. 1905
  • Erickson v. Northwest Paper Co. 104 N.W. 291 Minn. 1905
    Merrill v. Pike, 94 Minn. 186 , .