Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stein v. Kemp, 155 N.W. 1052.

32 citing documents.

In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis 731 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis 731 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44, 47 , 155 N.W.
Farmers State Bank v. Sig Ellingson & Co. 16 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1944
Farmers State Bank v. Sig Ellingson & Co. 16 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1944
Among them are such cases as Village of Monticello v. Citizens State Bank, 180 Minn. 418 , ; Pierson v. Swift County Bank, 163 Minn. 344 , ; and Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , .
Luiten v. Peyton 249 N.W. 420 Minn. 1933
Luiten v. Peyton 249 N.W. 420 Minn. 1933
Stabbert v. Manahan, 163 Minn. 214 , ; Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , .
Paul v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank 245 N.W. 832 Minn. 1932
Paul v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank 245 N.W. 832 Minn. 1932
Such cases as Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , ; Blummer v. Scandinavian Am.
Berg v. Union State Bank 229 N.W. 102 Minn. 1930
Berg v. Union State Bank 229 N.W. 102 Minn. 1930
Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , 155 N.W.
Bauck v. First State Bank 225 N.W. 916 Minn. 1929
Bauck v. First State Bank 225 N.W. 916 Minn. 1929
In Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , , the court held that when the plaintiff traced the fund or proceeds into the hands of the bank, the same were presumed to remain there, and it was then up to the defendant to show otherwise.
Adams v. Farmers State Bank of Olivia 222 N.W. 676 Minn. 1928
Adams v. Farmers State Bank of Olivia 222 N.W. 676 Minn. 1928
*112 We think the trial court was justified in finding that plaintiff’s money, by the unauthorized and wrongful act of an officer of the bank, went to swell its assets as taken over by the commissioner, and became a trust fund, entitled to a preference under such decisions as Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , ; Pierson v. Swift County Bank, 163 Minn. 344 , ; Blummer v. Scandinavian Am.
Eastman v. Farmers State Bank of Olivia 221 N.W. 236 Minn. 1928
Eastman v. Farmers State Bank of Olivia 221 N.W. 236 Minn. 1928
Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , .
Blythe v. Kujawa 220 N.W. 168 Minn. 1928
Blythe v. Kujawa 220 N.W. 168 Minn. 1928
The question was considered in Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , .
Standard Oil Co. (Ind.) v. Veigel 219 N.W. 863 Minn. 1928
Standard Oil Co. (Ind.) v. Veigel 219 N.W. 863 Minn. 1928
Bank, 122 N. Y. 379 , 25 N. E. 372 ; Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , ; Blummer v. Scandinavian Am.
Milne v. Capital Trust & Savings Bank 211 N.W. 954 Minn. 1927
Milne v. Capital Trust & Savings Bank 211 N.W. 954 Minn. 1927
Pierson v. Swift County Bank, 163 Minn. 344 , ; Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , .
State v. Johnson 211 N.W. 334 Minn. 1926
State v. Johnson 211 N.W. 334 Minn. 1926
Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , ; Security Bank v. N. W. Fuel Co. 58 Minn. 141 , ; note, 16 L. R. A. 516 and 39 L. R. A .(N. S.) 847; Blummer v. Scandinavian Am.
Hjelle v. Veigel 210 N.W. 891 Minn. 1926
Hjelle v. Veigel 210 N.W. 891 Minn. 1926
The following are some of the cases and authorities defining the relation existing between a bank and its depositors under various conditions, and the rights and liabilities arising therefrom: Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , ; Platts v. Metropolitan Nat.
Blummer v. Scandinavian American State Bank 210 N.W. 865 Minn. 1926
Blummer v. Scandinavian American State Bank 210 N.W. 865 Minn. 1926
Bank, 130 Minn. 219, 220 , ; Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , ; Stabbert v. Manaban, 163 Minn. 214 , ; Pierson v. Swift County Bank, 163 Minn. 344 , ; Northwestern Lbr.
Pierson v. Swift County Bank 204 N.W. 31 Minn. 1925
Pierson v. Swift County Bank 204 N.W. 31 Minn. 1925
Examples of this class are: Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , ; Stabbert v. Manahan, supra, page 214, Kimmel v. Dickson, 5 S. D. 221, , 25 L. R. A. 309, 49 Am.
Stabbert v. Manahan 203 N.W. 611 Minn. 1925
Stabbert v. Manahan 203 N.W. 611 Minn. 1925
Stein v. Kemp, 132 Minn. 44 , .