Cited by

Ever since the case of Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , , it has been the settled law of this state that when a deed is executed and irrevocably delivered to a third person, with instructions to deliver the deed to the grantee on the grantor’s death, a present interest passes to the grantee upon delivery .to the depositary, although enjoyment of the estate is postponed.

1915C, 538; Rogers v. County of Hennepin, 124 Minn. 539 , (affirmed in 240 U. S. 184 , 36 S. Ct. 265 , 60 L. ed. 594); State ex rel.

The trial court in its memorandum attached to its findings stated: “There can be no doubt that at the time Melissa Morgan executed the deeds, it was her then intention that title to the property described therein should ultimately vest in the grantees named therein.” The trial court, relying upon Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , , and Wortz v. Wortz, 128 Minn. 251 , , found that there had been no delivery of the deeds and that Mrs. Morgan intended to and did reserve the right to recall the dee

Paul & D. R. Co. 61 Minn. 18 , ; Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , ; Sons v. Sons, 145 Minn. 367 , .

If it was executed and delivered to Judge Spillane to be delivered to appellant at the grantors’ death in payment for services rendered, the title passed under the rule of Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , , and no claim for services can remain against the estate.

Babbitt v. Bennett, 68 Minn. 260 , ; Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , ; Innes v. Potter, 130 Minn. 320 , .

The case of Rogers v. County of Hennepin, 124 Minn. 539 , , affirmed in 240 U. S. 184 , 36 Sup.

Haeg v. Haeg, 53 Minn. 33 , ; Wicklund v. Lindquist, 102 Minn. 321 , ; Ekblaw v. Nelson, 124 Minn. 335 , ; Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , ; Wortz v. Wortz, 128 Minn. 251 , ; and Innes v. Potter, 130 Minn. 320 , .

Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , .

Barnard v. Thurston, 86 Minn. 343 , ; Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , ; Wortz v. Wortz, 128 Minn. 251 , ; Innes v. Potter, 130 Minn. 320, 321 , ; Renehan v. McAvoy, 116 Md.

The rule that, in case of a deed placed in escrow to be delivered to the grantee upon the death of the grantor, title does not pass if the grantor reserves the right to recall or control the deed (Dickson v. Miller, 12- 1 Minn. 346 , ), has no application to an agreement like the one in this case, when the only control is the right that the grantor would have anyway to insist on performance of the agreement by the grantee, a right of control not reserved by the grantor, but given by law.

Haeg v. Haeg, 53 Minn. 33 , ; Wicklund v. Lindquist, 102 Minn. 321 , ; Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , .

In Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346 , , the authorities bearing upon this question were fully considered, and the rule governing the present case is there stated as follows: “If the right to recall or control the.

Our conclusion, after a careful consideration of the arguments and briefs in this case and in the case of Rogers v. County of Hennepin, infra, page 539, , is that the trial court properly rendered judgment against defendant for the tax assessed against his membership in the Duluth Board of Trade.