Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McGrath v. Cannon, 57 N.W. 150.

33 citing documents.

Anderson v. Kammeier 262 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1977
Anderson v. Kammeier 262 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1977
2 E. g., McGrath v. Can *371 non, 55 Minn. 457 , 57 N.W.
Fewell v. Tappan 27 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1947
Fewell v. Tappan 27 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1947
The conclusion reached was that ( 55 Minn. 500 , ) “the doctrine in Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 434 , ( Gil.
E. Edelman & Co. v. Queen Stove Works, Inc. 284 N.W. 838 Minn. 1939
E. Edelman & Co. v. Queen Stove Works, Inc. 284 N.W. 838 Minn. 1939
McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , ; Potsdamer v. Kruse, 57 Minn. 193 , ; Johnson v. Fehsefeldt, 106 Minn. 202 , , 20 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Willhelm Lubrication Co. v. Brattrud 268 N.W. 634 Minn. 1936
Willhelm Lubrication Co. v. Brattrud 268 N.W. 634 Minn. 1936
In McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , , and Potsdamer v. Kruse, 57 Minn. 193, 196 , , this court, speaking through Mitchell, J., approved the following as suitable tests of severability: “If the part to be performed by one party consists of several distinct items, and the price to be paid by the other is apportioned to each ite
Simmer v. Simmer, Jr. 261 N.W. 481 Minn. 1935
Simmer v. Simmer, Jr. 261 N.W. 481 Minn. 1935
The rule of severability is illustrated by such cases as these: McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , (contract for purchase of lumber and hardware severable because in effect two separate contracts simultaneously entered into) ; Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder, 131 Minn. 125 , (contract for purchase of two sets of law books, each having its own price) ; Spear v. Snider, 29 Minn. 463 , 13
Leeker v. Marcotte 15 P.2d 969 Ariz. 1932
Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co. 237 N.W. 600 Minn. 1931
Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co. 237 N.W. 600 Minn. 1931
In McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457, 460 , , it is said: “Whether a contract is entire or severable, like most questions of construction, depends on the intention of the parties, and must be determined in each case by considering the language employed and •the subject matter of the contract, and how the parties themselves treated it.” The s
O'Brien v. Liberty Mining Co. 204 N.W. 625 Minn. 1925
O'Brien v. Liberty Mining Co. 204 N.W. 625 Minn. 1925
226 , as quoted and applied in McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457, 460 , .
Clifford v. Stewart 190 N.W. 613 Minn. 1922
Clifford v. Stewart 190 N.W. 613 Minn. 1922
McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , ; Johnson v. Fehsefeldt, 106 Minn. 202 , , 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1069; Bentley v. Edwards, 125 Minn. 179 , , 51 L. R. A. 254, Ann. Cas.
Mascall v. Reitmeier 176 N.W. 486 Minn. 1920
Mascall v. Reitmeier 176 N.W. 486 Minn. 1920
McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , .
Blake v. J. Neils Lumber Co. 127 N.W. 450 Minn. 1910
Blake v. J. Neils Lumber Co. 127 N.W. 450 Minn. 1910
*516 McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , ; Spear v. Snyder, 29 Minn. 463 , .
Duluth Log Co. v. John C. Hill Lumber Co. 124 N.W. 967 Minn. 1910
Duluth Log Co. v. John C. Hill Lumber Co. 124 N.W. 967 Minn. 1910
McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , .
Mulcahy v. Dieudonne 115 N.W. 636 Minn. 1908
Mulcahy v. Dieudonne 115 N.W. 636 Minn. 1908
652, 653 And see Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Lawson, 100 Iowa, 569 , ; Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Wiedemann, 72 Minn. 344, 350 , , ; McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , 57 N. *359 W. 150 ; Potsdamer v. Kruse, 57 Minn. 193 , .
Stauff v. Bingenheimer 102 N.W. 694 Minn. 1905
Stauff v. Bingenheimer 102 N.W. 694 Minn. 1905
Spear v. Snider, 29 Minn. 463 , ; McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn 457, .
Von Heyne v. Tompkins 93 N.W. 901 Minn. 1903
Von Heyne v. Tompkins 93 N.W. 901 Minn. 1903
See also Peterson v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 468 , ; McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , 57 * .
Potsdamer v. Kruse 58 N.W. 983 Minn. 1894
Fredette v. Thomas 58 N.W. 984 Minn. 1894
Potsdamer v. Kruse 58 N.W. 983 Minn. 1894
We had occasion recently to consider this question in McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , ( ,) in which we cited 2 Pars.
Fredette v. Thomas 58 N.W. 984 Minn. 1894
McGrath v. Cannon, 55 Minn. 457 , ( ;) Potsdamer v. Kruse, post, p. 193, ( .)