Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Hess' Estate, 59 N.W. 193.

38 citing documents.

Wolff v. Rhude & Fryberger, Inc. 145 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1966
Wolff v. Rhude & Fryberger, Inc. 145 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1966
See, also, In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , .
Mitchell v. Morten 54 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1952
Mitchell v. Morten 54 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1952
See, In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; Tretheway v. Carey, 60 Minn. 457 , ; First Nat.
McCarty v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 191 N.W. 819 Minn. 1923
McCarty v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 191 N.W. 819 Minn. 1923
In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; J. I. Case T. M. Co. v. McKinnon, 82 Minn. 75 , ; Price v. Washington Life Ins.
Welsh v. Estate of Welsh 181 N.W. 356 Minn. 1921
Welsh v. Estate of Welsh 181 N.W. 356 Minn. 1921
The statute of limitations did not begin to run against any item furnished under the contract until the death of Mrs. Welsh, and cases like In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; Lovell v. Beedle, 138 Minn. 12 , ; and Wagner v. Seaberg, 138 Minn. 37 , , are applicable.
Colby v. Street 178 N.W. 599 Minn. 1920
Colby v. Street 178 N.W. 599 Minn. 1920
In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; Wagner v. Seaberg, 138 Minn. 37 , ; Savage v. Minnesota L. & T. Co. 142 Minn. 187 , .
Hayford v. Daugherty 174 N.W. 442 Minn. 1919
Hayford v. Daugherty 174 N.W. 442 Minn. 1919
Winston v. Young, 52 Minn. 1 , *92 ; In re Hess' Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; Wagner v. Seaberg, 138 Minn. 37 , .
Savage v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 171 N.W. 778 Minn. 1919
Savage v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 171 N.W. 778 Minn. 1919
In re Hess Estate, 57 Minn. 282, .
Caldwell Milling & Elevator Co. v. L. L. May Co. 169 N.W. 797 Minn. 1918
Caldwell Milling & Elevator Co. v. L. L. May Co. 169 N.W. 797 Minn. 1918
In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; Stair v. McNulty, 133 Minn. 136 , .
Wagner v. Seaberg 163 N.W. 975 Minn. 1917
Wagner v. Seaberg 163 N.W. 975 Minn. 1917
In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , .
Stair v. McNulty 157 N.W. 1073 Minn. 1916
Stair v. McNulty 157 N.W. 1073 Minn. 1916
In the case of In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , , where conversations touched upon in cross were shown in redirect, the court said: “The statute makes any person a party to or interested in the result of a suit incompetent to testify to conversations with a deceased person.
Grignon v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 153 N.W. 117 Minn. 1915
Grignon v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 153 N.W. 117 Minn. 1915
Krenz v. Lee, 104 Minn. 455 , ; Hahn *40 v. Bettingen, 84 Minn. 512 , ; In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , .
Moe v. Paulson 150 N.W. 914 Minn. 1915
Moe v. Paulson 150 N.W. 914 Minn. 1915
In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , .
Teal v. Scandinavian-American Bank 131 N.W. 486 Minn. 1911
Teal v. Scandinavian-American Bank 131 N.W. 486 Minn. 1911
In re Hess’ Estate, 51 Minn. 282 , ; Hahn v. Bettingen, 84 Minn. 512 , ; J. I. Case T. M. Co. v. McKinnon, 82 Minn. 75 , .
Krenz v. Lee 116 N.W. 832 Minn. 1908
Krenz v. Lee 116 N.W. 832 Minn. 1908
In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; Hahn v. Bettingen, 84 Minn. 512 , .
Price v. Washington Life Insurance Co. of New York 99 N.W. 810 Minn. 1904
Price v. Washington Life Insurance Co. of New York 99 N.W. 810 Minn. 1904
In re Hess Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , ; J. I. Case Threshing-Mach.
Hahn v. Bettingen 88 N.W. 10 Minn. 1901
Hahn v. Bettingen 88 N.W. 10 Minn. 1901
“The mere fact that a party to the *514 suit gave evidence in a former suit between the same parties contradicting his evidence in the present suit does not conclude him as a question of law, but the effect to be given to his evidence is a question for the jury.” In re Hess Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , .
J. I. Case Threshing-Machine Co. v. McKinnon 84 N.W. 646 Minn. 1900
J. I. Case Threshing-Machine Co. v. McKinnon 84 N.W. 646 Minn. 1900
In re Hess Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , .
Reeves & Co. v. Cress 83 N.W. 443 Minn. 1900
Reeves & Co. v. Cress 83 N.W. 443 Minn. 1900
§ 278; In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , .
Tretheway v. Carey 62 N.W. 815 Minn. 1895
Tretheway v. Carey 62 N.W. 815 Minn. 1895
It is claimed, however, that the respondent waived his right to object to the admission of the evidence of the witness Bull because he cross-examined him, and the case of In re Hess’ Estate, 57 Minn. 282 , , is cited in support of this doctrine.