Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Veum v. Sheeran, 104 N.W. 135.

26 citing documents.

Spafford v. Hahn 143 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1966
Spafford v. Hahn 143 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1966
rovides: “It shall not be competent for any party to an action, or any person interested in the event thereof, to give evidence therein of or concerning any conversation with, or admission of, a deceased or insane party or person relative to any matter at issue between the parties, * * 6 Cited with approval in Chard v. Darlington, 243 Minn. 489, 500 , 68 *187 N. W. (2d) 405, 412; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , ; Hulett v. Carey, 66 Minn. 327 , .
Goette v. Howe 44 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1950
Goette v. Howe 44 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1950
2 As to implications of term “part performance,” see Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315, 319 , ; Trebesch v. Trebesch, 130 Minn. 368, 371 , ; 31 Minn. L. Rev. 497 -499.
Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo 23 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1946
Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo 23 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1946
7 See, Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , ; Trebesch v. Trebeseh, 130 Minn. 368 , ; Chapel v. Chapel, 132 Minn. 86 , ; Happel v. Happel, 184 Minn. 377 , .
Ritchie v. Jennings 233 N.W. 20 Minn. 1930
Ritchie v. Jennings 233 N.W. 20 Minn. 1930
We note in addition Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , , and Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .
Krost v. Moyer 207 N.W. 311 Minn. 1926
Krost v. Moyer 207 N.W. 311 Minn. 1926
Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Parker v. Maxwell, 51 Minn. 523 , ; Robbins v. Legg, 80 Minn. 419 , ; Merhoff v. Merhoff, 84 Minn. 263 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .
Welsh v. Estate of Welsh 181 N.W. 356 Minn. 1921
Welsh v. Estate of Welsh 181 N.W. 356 Minn. 1921
That indefiniteness as to the time of some feature of a contract does not render it invalid, see Lankton v. Stewart, 27 Minn. 346 , ; Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , ; Seigne v. Warren Auto Co. 147 Minn. 142 , .
State Bank v. Strandberg 180 N.W. 1006 Minn. 1921
State Bank v. Strandberg 180 N.W. 1006 Minn. 1921
Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .
Kociemba v. Kociemba 177 N.W. 927 Minn. 1920
Kociemba v. Kociemba 177 N.W. 927 Minn. 1920
There was sufficient part performance of the oral agreement to take it out of the statute of frauds within the rule stated in Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , 104 N W. 135; Chapel v. Chapel, 132 Minn. 86 , .
Holland v. Ousbye 155 N.W. 1071 Minn. 1916
Holland v. Ousbye 155 N.W. 1071 Minn. 1916
Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn.. 430 (462); Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .
Trebesch v. Trebesch 153 N.W. 754 Minn. 1915
Trebesch v. Trebesch 153 N.W. 754 Minn. 1915
The term is used “as a short and convenient statement of the general ground upon which verbal agreements regarding real estate are enforced.” Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315, 319 , .
Janochosky v. Kurr 139 N.W. 944 Minn. 1913
Janochosky v. Kurr 139 N.W. 944 Minn. 1913
The principle applied in *477 Williams v. Stewart, supra, is further elucidated in the cases of Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , , Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , , Jorgenson v. Jorgenson, 81 Minn. 428 , , Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , , and Paine v. Wilcox, 16 Wis.
Finn v. Modern Brotherhood of America 136 N.W. 850 Minn. 1912
Finn v. Modern Brotherhood of America 136 N.W. 850 Minn. 1912
Chadwick v. Cornish, 26 Minn. 28 , ; Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 55, 62 , ; Hall v. Northwestern E. & L. Assn. 47 Minn. 85 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .
Thomas v. Rogers 121 N.W. 630 Minn. 1909
Thomas v. Rogers 121 N.W. 630 Minn. 1909
Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 198 (219) ; Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .