Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Maguire v. Maguire, 214 N.W. 666.

26 citing documents.

Church of the Nativity of Our Lord v. WatPro, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1992
Wojtkowski v. Peterson 47 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1951
Wojtkowski v. Peterson 47 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1951
The rules are well stated and numerous authorities collected in Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492, 496 , , , where we said: *69 “The gist of the fraud is not the failure to perform the promise but the fraudulent intent of the promisor, at the time of making the promise, not to faithfully perform the promise and to deceive the promisee by the false promise.
Crowley v. Crowley 18 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1945
Bernstein v. Levitz 16 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1944
Bernstein v. Levitz 16 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1944
Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , .
Hackenjos v. Kemper Chevrolet Co. 257 N.W. 518 Minn. 1934
Hackenjos v. Kemper Chevrolet Co. 257 N.W. 518 Minn. 1934
203 ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , 214 N.W.
McDermott v. Ralich 247 N.W. 683 Minn. 1933
McDermott v. Ralich 247 N.W. 683 Minn. 1933
Corp. 159 Minn. 238 , ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Clark v. Peyton 187 Minn. 155 Minn. 1932
In Re Liquidation Farmers State Bank of Claremont 244 N.W. 550 Minn. 1932
Clark v. Peyton 187 Minn. 155 Minn. 1932
Paul, 82 Minn. 148 , ; Sheets v. Ramer, 125 Minn. 98 , ; Eder v. Fink, 147 Minn. 438 , ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , , .
In Re Liquidation Farmers State Bank of Claremont 244 N.W. 550 Minn. 1932
542 ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , 214 N.W.
Wunder v. Wunder 244 N.W. 682 Minn. 1932
Wunder v. Wunder 244 N.W. 682 Minn. 1932
284 , 285; Roman v. Lorence, 162 Minn. 198 , ; Smith v. Vosika, 163 Minn. 12 , ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , , .
Phelps v. Aurora State Bank 243 N.W. 682 Minn. 1932
Phelps v. Aurora State Bank 243 N.W. 682 Minn. 1932
Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , , ; Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson, 184 Minn. 294 , .
Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson 238 N.W. 487 Minn. 1931
Cannon Falls Holding Co. v. Peterson 238 N.W. 487 Minn. 1931
“It must be made affirmatively to appear that the promisor had no intention to perform at the time the promise was made.” Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492, 496 , , , and cases cited.
Gustafson v. Gustafson 226 N.W. 412 Minn. 1929
Gustafson v. Gustafson 226 N.W. 412 Minn. 1929
ion between the same parties upon a different claim or cause of action.” In the latter case the judgment in the first suit does operate as an estoppel, but only as to any “point or question actually litigated and determined.” 15 R. C. L. 962, 973; O’Brien v. Manwaring, 79 Minn. 86 , , 79 A. S. R. 426; Kinzel v. B. & D. F. L. Co. 124 Minn. 416 , ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , , ; Leonard v. Schall, 132 Minn. 446 , , 4 A. L. R. 1166.
Olson v. Shephard 215 N.W. 211 Minn. 1927
Olson v. Shephard 215 N.W. 211 Minn. 1927
161 Minn. 494 , ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , ; and Reichert v. Pure Oil Co. supra, p. 8 .
Reichert v. Pure Oil Co. 214 N.W. 669 Minn. 1927
Reichert v. Pure Oil Co. 214 N.W. 669 Minn. 1927
O’Brien v. Manwaring, 79 Minn. 86 , , 79 A. S. R. 426; Kinzel v. Boston & D. F. L. Co. 124 Minn. 416 , ; Maguire v. Maguire, 171 Minn. 492 , , .