DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rye v. Phillips, 282 N.W. 459.

25 citing documents.

  • K&S Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    that ‘Parties can alter their contract by mutual consent, and this requires no new consideration, for it is merely the substitution of a new contract for the old one, and this is of itself a sufficient consideration for the new.” Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 347, (citing Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567, 282 N.W.
  • Butch Levy Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sallblad 126 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1964
  • Butch Levy Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sallblad 126 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 1964
    In Winter Wolff & Co. v. Co-op Lead & Chemical Co. 261 Minn. 199, 209 , 111 N. W. (2d) 461, 467 , following Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120, we said that a similar rule was applicable when the debt is liquidated and not in dispute: “* * * Where two parties in the position of debtor and creditor, having full knowledge of the facts and dealing fairly with each other, settle an account, even though it may be called a liqui
  • Lehman v. Stout 112 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1961
  • Lehman v. Stout 112 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1961
    Restatement, Contracts, § 419, Illustration 2; Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120; Brack v. Brack, 218 Minn. 503 , 16 N. W. (2d) 557 ; Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334 , 90 N. W. (2d) 193 .
  • Winter Wolff & Co. v. Co-Op Lead & Chemical Co. 111 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1961
  • Winter Wolff & Co. v. Co-Op Lead & Chemical Co. 111 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1961
    In Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567, 569 , 282 N.W.
  • Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
  • Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
    Plaintiff points out that although it might be urged that Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120, has abrogated or changed the principles of law on accord and satisfaction set forth in the leading cases of Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , , and Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214 , , a close reading of the Rye case indicates that that
  • Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
  • Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
    However, this court has consistently held beginning with Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 540 , , that “Parties can alter their contract by mutual consent, and this requires no new consideration, for it is merely the substitution of a new contract for the old one, and this is of itself a sufficient consideration for the new.” *348 Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , ; Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , 30 N. W. (2d) 27 .
  • Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad 66 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1954
  • Johnson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad 66 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1954
    * * being a judge-made rule, no vested rights depending on it, judges are just as competent to get rid of it as the legislature.” Rye v. Phillips, 208 Minn. 567, 570 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120.
  • Fidelity State Bank v. Bradley 35 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1949
  • Fidelity State Bank v. Bradley 35 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1949
    The case of Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120, does not help defendant, for the reason that there we decided that a promise by a creditor to accept and the debtor to pay less than the sum due on a liquidated demand is binding, not that *545 a party may by parol evidence of a contemporaneous agreement vary a contract clear and u
  • Mattfeld v. Nester 32 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1948
  • Overruled Mattfeld v. Nester 32 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1948
    In Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567, 569 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120, we overruled and rejected as a “museum piece of the law” the common-law rule that a new consideration is necessary to sustain a debtor’s promise to accept something less than is due upon a liquidated debt in satisfaction thereof, which we already had adopted and followed, for
  • Welsh v. Barnes-Duluth Shipbuilding Co. 21 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1945
  • Welsh v. Barnes-Duluth Shipbuilding Co. 21 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1945
    We do not deem it necessary to consider the further question whether under the rule of Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120, plaintiff could release the reserves or unpaid salary increases without any consideration.
  • Brack v. Brack 16 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1944
  • Brack v. Brack 16 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1944
    y one party is a sufficient consideration to support all its provisions and to warrant the enforcement of the unexecuted portions thereof, if any, City of Marshall v. Kalman, 153 Minn. 320 , ; and (3) no consideration is necessary to support an agreement by a creditor to accept less than the amount due on a liquidated past-due indebtedness in discharge of the whole, Eye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120.
  • Johnson v. Kruse 285 N.W. 715 Minn. 1939
  • Johnson v. Kruse 285 N.W. 715 Minn. 1939
    Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120.)
  • Walgren v. Prudential Insurance Co. 285 N.W. 525 Minn. 1939
  • Walgren v. Prudential Insurance Co. 285 N.W. 525 Minn. 1939
    In view of the foregoing, we have no reason for consideration of Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120.