Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Christianson v. City of Tracy, 116 N.W. 925.

17 citing documents.

Jimmerson v. Troy Seed Co. 53 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1952
6 Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Bakke v. Keller 19 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1945
v. Mendenhall, 78 Minn. 64 , , supra, this principle is expressed as follows: “* * * Nor will a party, under the guise of showing what the real consideration of a contract was, be permitted to cut down or vary the stipulations of his written covenant by proof of a parol agreement, either antecedent to or contemporaneous with the writing.” See, also, Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
La Mourea v. Rhude 295 N.W. 304 Minn. 1940
Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Marshall State Bank v. Buesing 228 N.W. 348 Minn. 1929
On behalf of defendant Evarts there is an attempt to invoke the doctrine of Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 A. S. R. 618, and Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.
Brown v. Backer 207 N.W. 20 Minn. 1926
Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492; Thiem v. Eckert, 165 Minn. 379 , .
Thiem v. Eckert 206 N.W. 721 Minn. 1925
Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492.
Laughren v. J. S. Nolan Sales Stable Co. 203 N.W. 445 Minn. 1925
Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492; Borchert v. Skidmore Land Co. 168 Wis.
Shinners v. Ford 186 N.W. 704 Minn. 1922
Co 55 Minn. 236 , ; Bell v. Mendenhall, 78 Minn. 57 , ; Rooney v. Koenig, 80 Minn. 483 , ; Morse v. Johnson, 86 Minn. 9 , ; Current v. Muir, 99 Minn. 1 , ; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492; Graham v. Savage, 110 Minn. 510 , , 136 Am.
General Electric Co. v. Jordan 162 N.W. 1061 Minn. 1917
The facts come directly within the principle of Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492; Jefferson v. Asch, 53 Minn. 446 , , 25 L. R. A. 257, 39 Am.
Moore v. Mann 153 N.W. 609 Minn. 1915
618; Union Railway Storage Co. v. McDermott, 53 Minn. 407 , ; Horton v. Crowley Electric Co. 108 Minn. 508 , ; American B. & L. Assn. v. Waleen, 52 Minn. 23 , ; Mechanics’ Savings Bank of Providence v. Thompson, 58 Minn. 346 , ; Price v. Doyle, 34 Minn. 400 , ; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Clark v. P. M. Hennessey Construction Co. 142 N.W. 873 Minn. 1913
618; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Wood v. Johnson 135 N.W. 746 Minn. 1912
Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Grant v. King 134 N.W. 291 Minn. 1912
389; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Evans v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 134 N.W. 294 Minn. 1912
The special agreement to reconstruct the roadbed and restore the channel of the stream comes within the rule stated in Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Gaffney v. Sederberg 131 N.W. 333 Minn. 1911
618; Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , 22 L.R.A.
Michaud v. Erickson 122 N.W. 324 Minn. 1909
618, and Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , they are entitled to maintain the ac *362 tion, providing there was an obligation to them on the part of Head.
Clement v. Willett 117 N.W. 491 Minn. 1908
Kramer v. Gardner, 104 Minn. 370 , , and cases cited.