Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232.

25 citing documents.

Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
807, 808 (1924)); see also Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232, 236 , 18 Gil.
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 ( Gil.
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC 698 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
[that] may be overlooked.” Sieve, d at 793 ; see also Tinkcom, 21 Minn. at 141 (“Merely formal deviations or irregularities may be overlooked; but there must be a substantial compliance with the express requirements of the statute, in order to [effect] a valid redemption.”) (emphasis added); cf. Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232, 241 , 18 Gil.
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 674 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2004
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 674 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2004
Support for the dissent's interpretation can be found in Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 (Gil.212) (1872), where we said a mortgage is "a conveyance of an estate or interest in land.” A commentator has likewise said "[a] mortgage is included within the definition of a conveyance.” 6A Steven J. Kirsch, Minnesota Practice — Methods of Practice § 48.17 (3d ed.1990).
Forsythe v. City of South St. Paul 225 N.W. 816 Minn. 1929
Duluth Terminal Railway Co. v. City of Duluth 130 N.W. 18 Minn. 1911
Bowers v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. 81 N.W. 208 Minn. 1899
Society of the Most Precious Blood v. Moll 53 N.W. 648 Minn. 1892
Society of the Most Precious Blood v. Moll 53 N.W. 648 Minn. 1892
260 ;) — that a conveyance to a partnership in its firm name passes to it no title, —Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 , ( Gil.
Burke v. Backus 53 N.W. 458 Minn. 1892
Burke v. Backus 53 N.W. 458 Minn. 1892
ce of the death of the mortgagee and of the appointment of an administrator was not within the statute, because the devolution of title upon the personal representative by operation of law was not an “assignment,” within the meaning of the act; that it had reference only “to such assignments as are the subject of contract, and are made by the act of the parties.” Again, in Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 , ( Gil.
Backus v. Burke 51 N.W. 284 Minn. 1892
Backus v. Burke 51 N.W. 284 Minn. 1892
As was said in Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 , ( Gil.
Lamm v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 47 N.W. 455 Minn. 1890
Carli v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Co. 20 N.W. 89 Minn. 1884
Tidd v. Rines 2 N.W. 497 Minn. 1879
Tidd v. Rines 2 N.W. 497 Minn. 1879
Parsons on Partnership, 3C6; Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232 .
Thorp v. Merrill 21 Minn. 336 Minn. 1875
Thorp v. Merrill 21 Minn. 336 Minn. 1875
Ross v. Worthington, 11 Minn. 438 , 443 ; Morrison v. Mendenhall, 18 Minn. 232, 236, 241 .
Thorwarth v. Armstrong 20 Minn. 464 Minn. 1874