Cited by

That was the basis of the decision in the [First State Bank of Boyd v.] Hayden *82 case [ 121 Minn. 45 , ].

First State Bank v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45, 50 , .

This holding is not inconsistent with First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45 , , or Engel v. Mahlen, 153 Minn. 1 , , where the holding was that a notice to terminate such a contract given before the payment of the tax is ineffective.

First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45, 52 , .

Forest Lake State Bank v. Ekstrand, 112 Minn. 412 , ; Mason v. Fichner, 120 Minn. 185 , ; First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 131 Minn. 45 , ; Staples v. East St.

First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. *4 45 , ; Lassman v. Jacobson, 125 Minn. 218 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465, Ann. Cas.

The ruling was right under State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45 , .

First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45 , .

The notice of termination was ineffective because the registration tax was not paid (First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45 , ), but probably neither party knew the effect of this failure at that time.

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 , .

Cases like Forest Lake State Bank v. Ekstrand, 112 Minn. 412 , ; Mason v. Fichner, 120 Minn. 185 , State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45 , ; Staples v. East St.

That we are unable to spell out any intention from the mortgage registry tax law to place the legal obligation upon either party to a mortgage, or to an executory contract for the sale of land, to pay this tax is sufficiently indicated in Mason v. Fichner, 120 Minn. 185 , , and First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45 , *222 .

As said in First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, 121 Minn. 45, 50 , : “The statute is purely a revenue measure, and we find nothing therein to indicate that it was the legislative intent to declare instruments void for noncompliance therewith.” While care must be exercised by the courts that the provision of the statute here involved does not fail of its purpose by

This case is so closely related in its facts to First State Bank of Boyd v. Hayden, supra, page 45, , that the decision in the latter requires an affirmance in the former.