Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Skelton v. Grimm, 195 N.W. 139.

43 citing documents.

Vint v. Nelson 127 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1964
Vint v. Nelson 127 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1964
Anne, 237 Minn. 52 , 53 N. W. (2d) 449 ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; 7 Dunnell, Dig.
Hogan v. Church of St. Anne 53 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1952
Hogan v. Church of St. Anne 53 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1952
Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; see, Security Nat.
Hamilton v. Boyce 48 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1951
Hamilton v. Boyce 48 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1951
Bank v. Pulver, 131 Minn. 454, 456 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; National Finance Co. v. Mitchell, 157 Minn. 47 , .
Fidelity State Bank v. Bradley 35 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1949
Fidelity State Bank v. Bradley 35 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1949
Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson, 184 Minn. 294 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , .
Skogberg v. Hjelm 1 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1941
Skogberg v. Hjelm 1 N.W.2d 599 Minn. 1941
Though Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , , was an action by vendors to enforce a contract for the sale *396 of real estate, the court relied upon negotiable instrument cases in refusing evidence that the contract ivas not to become effective unless another contract between vendees and a third party was performed by the latter.
Gustafson v. Elmgren 300 N.W. 203 Minn. 1941
Gustafson v. Elmgren 300 N.W. 203 Minn. 1941
Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , 195 *
First State Bank of Kensington v. Braaten 292 N.W. 20 Minn. 1940
First State Bank of Kensington v. Braaten 292 N.W. 20 Minn. 1940
Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , .
Minar Rodelius Co. v. Lysen 277 N.W. 523 Minn. 1938
Minar Rodelius Co. v. Lysen 277 N.W. 523 Minn. 1938
The distinction is thus summarized ( 157 Minn. 50 ) : “In the former oral testimony is admissible as to the condition precedent to the going into existence of a written contract, while in the latter oral testimony as to the condition upon which an existing written contract is to become inoperative is inadmissible as tending to vary the terms of the instrument.” And in Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419, 420-421 , , the test is stated to be “that the condition, in order to admit the parol evidence,
Hendrickson v. Bannitz 261 N.W. 189 Minn. 1935
Hendrickson v. Bannitz 261 N.W. 189 Minn. 1935
(2 ed. & Supp. 1932) § 3377; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , .
In Re Estate of Nygren 248 N.W. 215 Minn. 1933
Fljozdal v. Johnson 188 Minn. 612 Minn. 1933
In Re Estate of Nygren 248 N.W. 215 Minn. 1933
989 ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , 195 N.W.
Fljozdal v. Johnson 188 Minn. 612 Minn. 1933
Bank v. Pulver, 131 Minn. 454 , ; Lake Harriet State Bank v. Miller, 138 Minn. 481 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson, 184 Minn. 294 , .
Heider v. Hermann Sons Hall Assn. 243 N.W. 699 Minn. 1932
Heider v. Hermann Sons Hall Assn. 243 N.W. 699 Minn. 1932
Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Merchants Nat.
Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson 238 N.W. 487 Minn. 1931
Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson 238 N.W. 487 Minn. 1931
Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , , and cases cited.
Kullberg Manufacturing Co. v. Smith 216 N.W. 249 Minn. 1927
Stadelmann v. Boothroyd 212 N.W. 908 Minn. 1927
Stadelmann v. Boothroyd 212 N.W. 908 Minn. 1927
Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313 , ; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Merchants Nat.
Brown v. Backer 207 N.W. 20 Minn. 1926
Brown v. Backer 207 N.W. 20 Minn. 1926
Co. 162 Minn. 465 , ; Dakota State Bank v. Winona Wagon Co. 162 Minn. 445 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Ryan v. Security Sav.
Silliman v. Dobner 205 N.W. 696 Minn. 1925
Towle-Jamieson Investment Co. v. Brannan 205 N.W. 699 Minn. 1925
Silliman v. Dobner 205 N.W. 696 Minn. 1925
Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn. 313, 314 , ; Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159 , ; Mendenhall v. Ulrich, 94 Minn. 100 , ; Liberty State Bank v. Metropolitan Church Assn. 154 Minn. 248 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Nat.
Towle-Jamieson Investment Co. v. Brannan 205 N.W. 699 Minn. 1925
Its purpose was not to show any change in the contract, but that when delivered the note was not a contract at all within the rule of Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , .
Dakota State Bank v. Winona Wagon Co. 203 N.W. 212 Minn. 1925
Stevens Corp. v. Farmers Equipment Co. 203 N.W. 213 Minn. 1925
Stevens Corp. v. Farmers Equipment Co. 203 N.W. 213 Minn. 1925
But, if it were to be deemed an independent agreement for another sale, proof of the alleged oral agreement would be inadmissible under Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Merchants Nat.
Dakota State Bank v. Winona Wagon Co. 203 N.W. 212 Minn. 1925
Horn v. Hansen, 56 Minn. 43 , , 22 L. R. A. 617; Samuel H. Chute Co. v. Latta, 123 Minn. 69 , ; Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. v. Helmer, 140 Minn. 135 , ; Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , ; Merchants Nat.
Leach v. Leach 202 N.W. 448 Minn. 1925
Leach v. Leach 202 N.W. 448 Minn. 1925
Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , .
Merchants National Bank v. Bryngelson 199 N.W. 905 Minn. 1924
Merchants National Bank v. Bryngelson 199 N.W. 905 Minn. 1924
a written instrument is not to become operative until some further act has been done or some future contingent event has happened and those cases in which it is claimed that the instrument is not to be given effect according to its terms, but is to be paid or performed at a different time or in a different manner than is stated therein, is clearly pointed out in the late case of Skelton v. Grimm, 156 Minn. 419 , , and the cases there cited.