Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. National Bond & Security Co. v. Krahmer, 117 N.W. 780.

28 citing documents.

Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157.
State v. Aitkin County Farm Land Co. 284 N.W. 63 Minn. 1939
State v. Aitkin County Farm Land Co. 284 N.W. 63 Minn. 1939
National Bond & Security Co. v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Klasen v. Thompson 248 N.W. 817 Minn. 1933
Klasen v. Thompson 248 N.W. 817 Minn. 1933
National B. & S. Co. v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Hutchinson v. Child 204 N.W. 648 Minn. 1925
Hutchinson v. Child 204 N.W. 648 Minn. 1925
It was' thought within the reasoning of State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157, construing a similar statute.
Blakeley v. L. M. Mann Land Co. 190 N.W. 797 Minn. 1922
Blakeley v. L. M. Mann Land Co. 190 N.W. 797 Minn. 1922
In construing and applying these provisions, this court has held that the rights of parties in tax proceedings are to be determined by the law in force at the time of the tax sale, State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157; that a statute giving to the purchaser the right to a refundment if the sale was *418 adjudged void, entered into and formed a substantial part of Ms contract, State v. Krahmer, 112 Minn. 372 , ; that these provisions are an essential part of the system by w
Schoonmaker v. St. Paul Title & Trust Co. 188 N.W. 223 Minn. 1922
Schoonmaker v. St. Paul Title & Trust Co. 188 N.W. 223 Minn. 1922
State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , ; Byers v. Minnesota C. L. Co. 118 Minn. 266 , .
Northern Counties Land Co. v. Excelsior Land, Mining & Development Co. 178 N.W. 497 Minn. 1920
Northern Counties Land Co. v. Excelsior Land, Mining & Development Co. 178 N.W. 497 Minn. 1920
Fleming v. Roverud, 30 Minn. 273 , ; Merrill v. Dearing, 32 Minn. 479 , ; State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. National Surety Co. 158 N.W. 802 Minn. 1916
Standard Salt & Cement Co. v. National Surety Co. 158 N.W. 802 Minn. 1916
“It is conceded that no one has a vested right in any particular remedy, and that the legislature may change or modify the existing remedies for the enforcement and protection of contract rights so long as an adequate remedy remains.” State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.
Downing v. Lucy 141 N.W. 183 Minn. 1913
Downing v. Lucy 141 N.W. 183 Minn. 1913
The certificates here in question were issued prior to the passage of chapter 271, and though it was competent for the legislature subsequently to prescribe a limitation within which title thereunder may be perfected (State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Byers v. Minnesota Commercial Loan Co. 136 N.W. 880 Minn. 1912
Byers v. Minnesota Commercial Loan Co. 136 N.W. 880 Minn. 1912
Paul, 102 Minn. 208 , ; State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
State ex rel. Brodie v. Krahmer 128 N.W. 288 Minn. 1910
State ex rel. Brodie v. Krahmer 128 N.W. 288 Minn. 1910
State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Johnson v. Fraser 127 N.W. 474 Minn. 1910
Johnson v. Fraser 127 N.W. 474 Minn. 1910
The subject was also generally discussed and authorities cited in State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , , 21 L.R.A.
Slocum v. McLaren 122 N.W. 871 Minn. 1909
Slocum v. McLaren 122 N.W. 871 Minn. 1909
State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , ; Gray v. City of St.
Babcock v. Johnson 121 N.W. 909 Minn. 1909
Babcock v. Johnson 121 N.W. 909 Minn. 1909
However, it would seem that the finding inures' to the benefit of plaintiff; for if the judgment is void he is entitled to a refundment from the county, whereas, if valid, his time for the service of a notice of expiration of the time of redemption has expired under the provisions of chapter 271, p. 407, Laws 1905 (State v. Krahmer, 105 Minn. 422 , ), and he is without remedy for reimbursement.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by