Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Leach v. Leach, 202 N.W. 448.
- Neill v. Hake 93 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1958
-
Neill v. Hake
93 N.W.2d 821
Minn. 1958
There this court stated ( 181 Minn. 124 , ): *119 “* * * it is not necessary to ask for nor have a decree of reformation when, as here, plaintiff is in possession and has title in fee and it appears that the one who asserts a lien cannot in equity do so because the instrument under which the claim is asserted is subject to reformation $ ‡ ‡ 99 See, also, Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , ; School Dist.
- 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
Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , .
- Holste v. Baker 26 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 1947
-
Holste v. Baker
26 N.W.2d 473
Minn. 1947
Kuhne v. Gau, 138 Minn. 34 , ; Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , ; In re Estate of Beier, 205 Minn. 43 , .
- Lawrenz v. Langford Electric Co. 288 N.W. 727 Minn. 1939
-
Lawrenz v. Langford Electric Co.
288 N.W. 727
Minn. 1939
Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159, 162, 163 , ; 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
- In Re Estate of Herman Beier 284 N.W. 833 Minn. 1939
- Kohn v. Beier 284 N.W. 833 Minn. 1939
-
Kohn v. Beier
284 N.W. 833
Minn. 1939
And this court in Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159, 161 , , said: “A good definition of an advancement is found in 18 C. J. p. 911: “ ‘In its legal sense * an advancement is an irrevocable gift in praesenti of money or property * * * to a child by a parent to enable the donee to anticipate his inheritance to the extent of the gift.’ ” There is of co
-
In Re Estate of Herman Beier
284 N.W. 833
Minn. 1939
And this court in Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , 161 , 202 N.W.
- Papke v. Pearson 280 N.W. 183 Minn. 1938
-
Papke v. Pearson
280 N.W. 183
Minn. 1938
Co. 155 Minn. 50 , ; Hines v. Bauer, 158 Minn. 298 , ; Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , ; 5 Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed.) § 1585; Restatement, Contracts, § 504.
- Quarfot v. Security National Bank & Trust Co. 249 N.W. 668 Minn. 1933
-
Quarfot v. Security National Bank & Trust Co.
249 N.W. 668
Minn. 1933
(2 ed.) § 4038; Hooper v. Vanstrum, 92 Minn. 406 , ; Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , .
- School District No. 1 v. Security State Bank 233 N.W. 296 Minn. 1930
-
School District No. 1 v. Security State Bank
233 N.W. 296
Minn. 1930
“The right to a reformation may be shown defensively, and, if so shown, the court will treat the defective instrument as reformed.” Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , .
- First National Bank v. Northwestern Trust Co. 231 N.W. 790 Minn. 1930
-
First National Bank v. Northwestern Trust Co.
231 N.W. 790
Minn. 1930
No. 73 v. Wrabeck, 31 Minn. 77 , ; Scofield v. Quinn, 54 Minn. 9 , ; Alt v. Graff, 65 Minn. 191 , ; Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159, 163 , .
- Ross v. Amiret Farmers Elevator Co. 226 N.W. 417 Minn. 1929
-
Ross v. Amiret Farmers Elevator Co.
226 N.W. 417
Minn. 1929
In Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , , there was a suit to recover the principal and interest on a note.
- Dewolf v. Ericson 220 N.W. 406 Minn. 1928
-
Dewolf v. Ericson
220 N.W. 406
Minn. 1928
In Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , , nothing else was held than that it might be shown by parol that a note was given to evidence an advancement.
- Leach v. Leach 209 N.W. 636 Minn. 1926
-
Leach v. Leach
209 N.W. 636
Minn. 1926
In the same year a house was built thereon at a cost of about $2,350, of which $2,000 was procured from defendant Mary Leach, the mother of the husband, as disclosed in Leach v. Leach, 162 Minn. 159 , .