Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Howe v. Coates, 107 N.W. 397.

27 citing documents.

Aeon, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We “evaluate the marketability of title from the viewpoin t of the putative purchaser, not from the position of the seller or a third party.” Id.; see also Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385, 397, 107 N.W.
Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Title, LLP 824 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Title, LLP 824 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 2012
that prudent men, knowing the facts, would hesitate to take it.” Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385, 400 , 107 N.W.
Lucas v. Independent School District No. 284 433 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1988
Lucas v. Independent School District No. 284 433 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 1988
640, 642 (1912) (contract required title perfect of record); Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385, 393-94 , 107 N.W.
Lucas v. Independent School District No. 284 419 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lucas v. Independent School District No. 284 419 N.W.2d 641 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385, 395 , 107 N.W.
Miller v. Snedeker 101 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1960
Miller v. Snedeker 101 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1960
In Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385, 398 , , 4 L.R.A.
City of North Mankato v. Carlstrom 2 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1942
City of North Mankato v. Carlstrom 2 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1942
It is applied alike by substantially all the courts, and for the primary purpose of protecting the vendee in executory contracts for the sale of land from the burden of litigation which may be necessary to remove apparent or real defects in the title.” Many of our prior cases are there cited, including Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State Bank, by Benson v. Bryson 262 N.W. 561 Minn. 1935
State Bank, by Benson v. Bryson 262 N.W. 561 Minn. 1935
Knudson v. Trebesch, 152 Minn. 6 , ; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L.R.A.
Joslyn v. Irwin-Dick Co. 209 N.W. 889 Minn. 1926
Joslyn v. Irwin-Dick Co. 209 N.W. 889 Minn. 1926
The following may be noted as involving some features similar to the situation here, and to that extent helpful: George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Horn v. Butler, 39 Minn. 515 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785; Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , ; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , *276 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170, 114 Am.
Ross v. Carroll 194 N.W. 315 Minn. 1923
Ross v. Carroll 194 N.W. 315 Minn. 1923
It may be well to note that the contract in question differs from the contracts involved in Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170, 114 Am.
Knudson v. Trebesch 187 N.W. 613 Minn. 1922
Knudson v. Trebesch 187 N.W. 613 Minn. 1922
Horn v. Butler, 39 Minn. 515 , ; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170, 114 Am.
Geray v. Mahnomen Land Co. 173 N.W. 871 Minn. 1919
Geray v. Mahnomen Land Co. 173 N.W. 871 Minn. 1919
Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Johnson v. Herbst 167 N.W. 356 Minn. 1918
Johnson v. Herbst 167 N.W. 356 Minn. 1918
507; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L.R.A.
Hubachek v. Maxbass Security Bank 134 N.W. 640 Minn. 1912
Hubachek v. Maxbass Security Bank 134 N.W. 640 Minn. 1912
521; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 128 N.W. 459 Minn. 1910
Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 128 N.W. 459 Minn. 1910
On this question of incumbrances the cases of Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , 4 L.R.A.(N.S.)