Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hage v. Benner, 127 N.W. 3.

26 citing documents.

Conley v. Downing 321 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1982
Distinguished Conley v. Downing 321 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1982
431 (1919) (dictum); Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , 127 N.W.
Hjelm v. Bergman 275 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1978
Hjelm v. Bergman 275 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1978
431 (1919) (dictum); Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , 127 N.W.
Ahlstrand v. McPherson 173 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1969
Ahlstrand v. McPherson 173 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1969
Enga v. Felland, 264 Minn. 67 , 117 N. W. (2d) 787 ; Krost v. Moyer, 166 Minn. 153 , ; Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , .
Burman v. Burman 40 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1950
Burman v. Burman 40 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1950
Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , .
Larson v. Johnson 221 N.W. 871 Minn. 1928
Larson v. Johnson 221 N.W. 871 Minn. 1928
Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , .
Paschke v. C. W. Adams Lumber Co. 211 N.W. 827 Minn. 1927
Paschke v. C. W. Adams Lumber Co. 211 N.W. 827 Minn. 1927
While not directly in point see also Reynolds v. Fleming, 43 Minn. 513 , ; Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , ; Christopherson v. Harrington, 118 Minn. 42 , , 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 275.
Stannard v. Marboe 198 N.W. 127 Minn. 1924
Stannard v. Marboe 198 N.W. 127 Minn. 1924
We think by inference, this court in Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , , used language consistent with the views that we are now adopting.
Clark v. Dye 197 N.W. 209 Minn. 1924
Clark v. Dye 197 N.W. 209 Minn. 1924
Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , ; First Nat.
Needles v. Keys 184 N.W. 33 Minn. 1921
Needles v. Keys 184 N.W. 33 Minn. 1921
Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , .
First National Bank v. Coon 173 N.W. 431 Minn. 1919
First National Bank v. Coon 173 N.W. 431 Minn. 1919
Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , .
Greenfield v. Taylor 170 N.W. 345 Minn. 1919
Greenfield v. Taylor 170 N.W. 345 Minn. 1919
Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , .
Mathwig v. Strand 157 N.W. 589 Minn. 1916
Mathwig v. Strand 157 N.W. 589 Minn. 1916
Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365 , 127 N W. 3; First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45 , 140 N W. 132; International Realty & Securities Corp. v. Vanderpoel, 127 Minn. 89 , .
First State Bank v. Hayden 140 N.W. 132 Minn. 1913
First State Bank v. Hayden 140 N.W. 132 Minn. 1913
As tersely declared by the present Chief Justice in Hage v. Benner, 111 Minn. 365, 368 , , in referring to this section, “the proceeding authorized by the statute is in legal effect a foreclosure of the vendee’s equity of redemption.” This court has frequently declared that such contracts cannot be rescinded for defaults of the vendee without the service of the statutory notice.