Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Horn, 139 N.W. 805.

28 citing documents.

Saric v. Stover 451 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507, 508 , (court must dismiss appeal from injunction order where order directs entry of judgment, although such orders are ordinarily appealable).
The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota 432 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507
The Marriage Erickson v. Erickson 430 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Holliston v. Emston, 120 Minn. 507
Matter of Salkin 430 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507, 508
Matter of Schueller 426 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507 , (although order granting an injunction is appealable of right, an order for judgment granting an injunction is not appealable or effective until judgment is entered, and proper appeal is from judgment).
Possis Corp. v. Continental MacHines, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
However, in Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507 , the supreme court construed a statute with language similar to Rule 103.03(b) to require that an appeal be brought from a judgment, when an order granting an injunction directs entry of judgment.
Schaust v. TOWN BD. OF HOLLYWOOD TP., CARVER CTY. 204 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1973
See, Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507 , Arnoldy v. Northwestern State Bank, 142 Minn. 449
Merz v. Oftedal 144 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1966
Prahl v. County of Brown, 104 Minn. 227 , ; Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507 , .
State v. Lahiff 45 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1951
Atwood v. Holmes 28 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1947
Atwood v. Holmes 28 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1947
satisfied.” See, also, In re Tower’s Estate, 49 Minn. 371 , ; Y. M. C. A. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , ; Congdon v. Congdon, 160 Minn. 343, 361 , ; Erickson v. Erickson, 197 Minn. 71, 80 , , , 427.
Salscheider v. Holmes 286 N.W. 347 Minn. 1939
Salscheider v. Holmes 286 N.W. 347 Minn. 1939
It is also to be noted that Y. M. C. A. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , , and In re Trusteeship Under Will of Bell, 147 Minn. 62 , , were cases where the trust was in writing but where it was definitely held that the trusts *464 were authorized by subd.
Lundquist v. First Evangelical Lutheran Church 259 N.W. 9 Minn. 1935
In Re Estate of Lundquist 259 N.W. 9 Minn. 1935
In Re Estate of Lundquist 259 N.W. 9 Minn. 1935
1104 ; Young Men's Christian Assn. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , 139 N.W.
Lundquist v. First Evangelical Lutheran Church 259 N.W. 9 Minn. 1935
Atwater v. Russell, 49 Minn. 57 , , ; Lane v. Eaton, 69 Minn. 141 , , 38 L. R. A. 669, 65 A. S. R. 559; Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210 , ; Young-Men’s Christian Assn. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , ; Little v. Universalist Convention, 143 Minn. 298 , : Although there is nothing to prevent following the old method, yet charitable trusts are now, and have been, valid in this state since 1927.
Henrikson v. Swedish Baptist Mission Society 203 N.W. 778 Minn. 1925
Henrikson v. Swedish Baptist Mission Society 203 N.W. 778 Minn. 1925
And under Young Men's Christian Assn. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , 139 N.W.
Congdon v. Congdon 200 N.W. 76 Minn. 1924
Congdon v. Congdon 200 N.W. 76 Minn. 1924
There is no reasonable rule of construction which will exclude personal property from trusts prohibited by the statute, and we so hold.” In Watkins v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. 210, 223 , it was said: “The law then was, and had been from the beginning of the state, that express trusts, except as authorized and modified by the statute, were prohibited.” In Y. M. C. A. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404, 407 , this language was used: “Assuming for the time being that the trust property consista entirely of personalty
Wilson v. Tauer 180 N.W. 93 Minn. 1920
Co. 39 Minn. 30 , ; Holliston v. Ernston, 120 Minn. 507 , .
In re the Trusteeship under the Last Will & Testament of Bell 179 N.W. 650 Minn. 1920
In re the Trusteeship under the Last Will & Testament of Bell 179 N.W. 650 Minn. 1920
Y. M. C. A. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , ; Minn. Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas, 135 Minn. 413 , .
Walso v. Latterner 168 N.W. 353 Minn. 1918
Walso v. Latterner 168 N.W. 353 Minn. 1918
As to the scope of subdivision 5, attention is called to the able and exhaustive opinion of the late Justice P. E. Brown in Young Men's Christian Assn. v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404 , .
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas 161 N.W. 158 Minn. 1917
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas 161 N.W. 158 Minn. 1917
them, and that the *424 free alienation of the legal estate by the trustee is not suspended for a period exceeding the limit prescribed in chapter 59.” Respondent contends that, since all trusts permitted under the common law have been abolished in this state both as to realty and personalty (Shanahan v. Kelly, 88 Minn. 202, 211 , ; Young Men’s Christian Assn. of Minneapolis v. Horn, 120 Minn. 404, 407 , ), such only as our statutes expressly authorize can now be created, and that the one here a