Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wilcox v. Davis, 4 Minn. 197.

22 citing documents.

  • Minter Bros. v. Hochman 42 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1950
  • Minter Bros. v. Hochman 42 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1950
    In Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 (278), plaintiff, who had no license to sell intoxicating liquor, brought action to recover *162 for liquor sold to defendant.
  • In Re Estate of Peterson 42 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1950
  • In Re Estate of Peterson 42 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1950
    See, Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 (278); 2 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Township of Normania v. County of Yellow Medicine 286 N.W. 881 Minn. 1939
  • Robb v. Parten 220 N.W. 610 Minn. 1928
  • Robb v. Parten 220 N.W. 610 Minn. 1928
    The trial court in its memorandum stated: "The ordinance, as far as here important, is held valid and the plaintiffs are denied a recovery, on the authority of: Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 (278); Buckley v. Humason, 50 Minn. 195 , 52 N.W.
  • G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Peimeisl 88 N.W. 441 Minn. 1901
  • G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Peimeisl 88 N.W. 441 Minn. 1901
    Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 (278); Ingersoll v. Randall, 14 Minn. 304 (400); Bisbee v. McAllen, 39 Minn. 143 , .
  • Citizens' State Bank v. Bonnes 85 N.W. 718 Minn. 1901
  • Citizens' State Bank v. Bonnes 85 N.W. 718 Minn. 1901
    U. S. § 5388, has no bearing upon this question, and that two of the cases cited by defendants’ counsel — Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 (278), and Ingersoll v. Randall, 14 Minn. 304 (400) — are not in point.
  • Langworthy v. Garding 74 Minn. 325 Minn. 1898
  • Langworthy v. Garding 74 Minn. 325 Minn. 1898
    We have not overlooked Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 (278), which was practically followed in Olson v. Hurley, 33 Minn. 39 , ; but we now hold that it was unnecessary for plaintiff, as part of his cause of action, to show that the insurance company had complied with the statute, and had obtained a certificate of authority to transact business within our bor
  • Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Mason 46 N.W. 558 Minn. 1890
  • Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Mason 46 N.W. 558 Minn. 1890
    While it would seem quite unnecessary so to do, it may be well to call attention at the outset to the fact that this case should not be confounded with one wherein the vendor in selling his goods has violated a statute requiring him to first procure a license, as was that of Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 , (278.)
  • James v. Jordan 33 N.W. 5 Minn. 1887
  • Olson v. Hurley 21 N.W. 842 Minn. 1884
  • Olson v. Hurley 21 N.W. 842 Minn. 1884
    *40 The return containing all the evidence, and showing no formal proof made by plaintiff of license to sell intoxicating liquor, the district court, upon the authority of Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 , (278,) ruled that he could not recover for the liquors furnished, and reversed the judgment of the justice accordingly.
  • Hersey v. Bennett 9 N.W. 590 Minn. 1881
  • Hersey v. Bennett 9 N.W. 590 Minn. 1881
    Cases where the older items were barred by the statute of limitations, as in Livermore v. Rand, 26 N. H. 85, or are illegal, as in Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 197 , (278,) are apparently, but not really, exceptions to the rule.
  • Hathaway v. Brown 18 Minn. 414 Minn. 1872
  • Davis v. Pierce 10 Minn. 376 Minn. 1865