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