Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Sheehan v. Reed, 156 N.W. 128.

17 citing documents.

Juan Cuate v. Pedro Cuate-Dominguez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ass’n, (in a property tax appeal concerning iron mining leases, defining rent as “the compensation which the occupier pays the landlord for that species of occupation which the contract between them allows” (quotation omitted)).
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
8 See State v. Royal Mineral Ass’n, 132 Minn. 232, 236 , (“[T]he term ‘credits,’ as used in the taxing statutes, embraces only choses in action which are in their nature personal property.”); Mattson v. Minnesota & N. Wis.
Nelson's Office Supply Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner 508 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1993
burse the lessor, among other things, for the categories of payment in this case.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “rent” as “consideration paid for use or occupation of property.” And this court, in 1916, described “rent” as “compensation which the occupier pays the landlord for that species of occupation which the contract between them allows.” State v. Royal Mineral Ass’n., 132 Minn. 232, 235
Matter of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties 263 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1978
158 (1917); State v. Royal Mineral Assn., 132 Minn. 232 , State v. Evans, 99 Minn. 220 , 108 N.W.
Wojahn v. Faul 51 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1952
2 State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Hassler v. Engberg 48 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1951
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
State v. Longyear Holding Co. 29 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1947
Co. 143 Minn. 271 , ; Boeing v. Owsley, 122 Minn. 190 , ; and State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
Ambrozich v. City of Eveleth 274 N.W. 635 Minn. 1937
There is no provision in the statute for proving or allowing any such mere contingency as a claim against the estate of an insolvent.” In State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232, 236 , , Ann. Cas.
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown 230 N.W. 780 Minn. 1930
Boeing v. Owsley, 122 Minn. 190 , ; State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
Marble v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 215 N.W. 71 Minn. 1927
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Armson 207 N.W. 727 Minn. 1926
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
O'Brien v. Liberty Mining Co. 204 N.W. 625 Minn. 1925
State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232, 235 , , Ann. Cas.
State v. Peterson 198 N.W. 1011 Minn. 1924
In State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
Dohs v. Holm 189 N.W. 418 Minn. 1922
128 Minn. 384 , ; State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
Vanderburgh v. Vanderburgh 188 N.W. 276 Minn. 1922
Quoting from State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , Ann. Cas.
Orr v. Bennett 161 N.W. 165 Minn. 1917
In view of two conflicting provisions of the lease, that question is not clear.’ The lease is not the same as those construed in State v. Royal Mineral Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , .
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas 161 N.W. 158 Minn. 1917
Assn. 132 Minn. 232 , , it is now settled law in this state that royalties under mining leases constitute rents and profits from land.