Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 215.
- State v. Lopez-Solis 589 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1999
- Lienhard v. State 431 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1988
- State Ex Rel. Maffett v. Turnbull 3 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1942
- In Re Petition of Schaller 259 N.W. 529 Minn. 1935
- Eikmeier v. Steffen 155 N.W. 92 Minn. 1915
- State ex rel. Greene v. Hugo 86 N.W. 784 Minn. 1901
- State ex rel. Childs v. Pioneer Press Co. 68 N.W. 769 Minn. 1896
- Smith v. Board of County Commissioners 65 N.W. 956 Minn. 1896
- J. Magill Smith v. St. Paul German Fire Ins. 57 N.W. 475 Minn. 1894
-
J. Magill Smith v. St. Paul German Fire Ins.
57 N.W. 475
Minn. 1894
Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 215 , ( Gil.
- Russell & Co. v. Davis 51 Minn. 482 Minn. 1892
-
Russell & Co. v. Davis
51 Minn. 482
Minn. 1892
291 ;) Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 215 , ( Gil.
- Denny v. Marrett 13 N.W. 148 Minn. 1882
-
Denny v. Marrett
13 N.W. 148
Minn. 1882
* * * And in the case of an acknowledgment or im-¿ed promise, there should be a direct recognition of the indebted-sued on, from which a willingness to pay the same may be reasonably implied.” In Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 215 , the court says: “An admission of indebtedness, to take the case out of the statute, must be such as reasonably leads to the inference that the debtor intended to renew his promise to pay.” We reaffirm the rule thus indicated.
- Young v. Perkins 12 N.W. 515 Minn. 1882
-
Young v. Perkins
12 N.W. 515
Minn. 1882
In Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 215 , it was remarked (p. 224:) “There is no doubt that a part-payment, without words or acts to indicate its character, would not be construed as carrying with it an acknowledgment that more was due and would be paid;, i. e., it would not be evidence from which a jury would be warranted in inferring a new prbmise.
- Chadwick v. Cornish 1 N.W. 55 Minn. 1879
-
Chadwick v. Cornish
1 N.W. 55
Minn. 1879
(xilkillan, C. J. In the case of Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 215 , this court stated the rule in relation to a part-payment of a debt preventing the running of the statute of' limitations, as follows: (p. 224:) “There is no doubt that a part-payment, without words or acts to indicate its character, would not be construed as carrying with it an acknowledgment that more was due and w