Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Exsted v. Exsted, 279 N.W. 554.

36 citing documents.

Denise M. Tessman, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Delivery of a deed requires the “surrender of its control by the grantor, together with an intent to convey title thereby.” Exsted v. Exsted
In the Matter of the Estate of: Orville C. Jacobson, In the Matter of the Estate of: Hughie … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Estate of: Orville C. Jacobson, In the Matter of the Estate of: Hughie … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521, 524-25, 279 N.W.
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
Mollico v. Mollico 628 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Mollico v. Mollico 628 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
228, 229 (1940) (stating grantor must *642 evince intent to convey title); Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521, 525 , 279 N.W.
Sellnow v. Fahey 233 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1975
Sellnow v. Fahey 233 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1975
See, also, Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , Sample v. Differt, 296 Minn. 471
Lundberg v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 216 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1974
Lundberg v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 216 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1974
The substance of estoppel is “the reasonable reliance by one party upon the representation of another which will injure the first party if that other is permitted to assert the existence of a state of facts at variance with those represented.” Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521, 526
Sample v. Differt 206 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1973
Sample v. Differt 206 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1973
We disposed of the same issue in Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521, 527 , where we held that Minn. St.
State ex rel. Mondale v. Hanna Mining Co. 121 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1963
State ex rel. Mondale v. Hanna Mining Co. 121 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1963
Anthony Falls Water-Power Co. v. Morrison, 12 Minn. 162 (249); Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , , 117 A. L. R. 599.
Nybladh v. Peoples State Bank of Warren 76 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1956
Nybladh v. Peoples State Bank of Warren 76 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1956
Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , , 117 A. L. R. 599.
Pearson v. Bertelson 69 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1955
Pearson v. Bertelson 69 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1955
5 In re Estate of Arnt, 237 Minn. 245 , 54 N. W. (2d) 333 ; Bowers v. Schuler, 54 Minn. 99 , ; Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , , 117 A. L. R. 599; Geraghty v. Kilroy, 103 Minn. 286 , ; Cocker v. Cocker, 215 Minn. 565 , 10 N. W. (2d) 734 .
Ehmke v. Hill 51 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1952
Ehmke v. Hill 51 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 1952
2 Towle v. Sherer, 70 Minn. 312 , ; Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , , 117 A. L. R. 599.
Suske v. Straka 39 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1949
Suske v. Straka 39 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1949
nsideration for a promissory note (§ 335.131 [N. I. L. § 25]; DeWolf v. Johnson, 177 Minn. 612 , ); and that a gift is not divested by a redelivery of the subject thereof to the donor without intention to retransfer title to him, as, for example, plaintiff’s sewing the promissory note in defendant’s vest pocket (Larkin v. McCabe, 211 Minn. 11 , ; see, Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , ,117 A. L. R. 599).
Roberts v. Friedell 15 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1944
Roberts v. Friedell 15 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1944
The substance of such estoppel is “the reasonable reliance by one party upon the representation of another which will injure the first party if that other is permitted to assert the existence of a state of facts at variance with those represented.” Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521, 526 , , 117 A. L. R. 599; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
Froslee v. Sonju 297 N.W. 1 Minn. 1941
Froslee v. Sonju 297 N.W. 1 Minn. 1941
Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , , 117 A. L. R. 554; Emerson-Brantingham Imp.
Cloutier v. Charest 294 N.W. 457 Minn. 1940
In Re Application to Register Title to Real Estate 294 N.W. 457 Minn. 1940
In Re Application to Register Title to Real Estate 294 N.W. 457 Minn. 1940
525 ; Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , 279 N.W.
Cloutier v. Charest 294 N.W. 457 Minn. 1940
The subject of delivery is quite fully treated and authorities cited in Babbitt v. Bennett, 68 Minn. 260 , ; Ingersoll v. Odendahl, 136 Minn. 428 , ; Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , , 117 A. L. R. 554.
Slawik v. Loseth 290 N.W. 228 Minn. 1940
Slawik v. Loseth 290 N.W. 228 Minn. 1940
The essential elements of delivery are “the surrender of its control by the grantor, together with an intent to convey title thereby.” Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521, 524, 525 , , 117 A. L. R. 554.
Salscheider v. Holmes 286 N.W. 347 Minn. 1939
Salscheider v. Holmes 286 N.W. 347 Minn. 1939
Bank, 178 Minn. 452 , ; Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , , 117 A. L. R. 554; Keough v. St.
Keough v. St. Paul Milk Co. 285 N.W. 809 Minn. 1939
Keough v. St. Paul Milk Co. 285 N.W. 809 Minn. 1939
Exsted v. Exsted, 202 Minn. 521 , 527 , 279 N.W.