DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132.

32 citing documents.

  • 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
    95, 96 (1926) (“The purpose of the statute requiring the affidavit is to make a record for the information of subsequent lienholders who may desire to redeem.”); Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132, 140-41 (1874) (“The purpose of the provision ...
  • Sieve v. Rosar 613 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Sieve v. Rosar 613 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    See Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 , 134 n. 1 (Minn.1874) (setting forth the requirements for a valid redemption).
  • Olmsted County Bank & Trust Co. v. Pesch 16 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1944
  • Olmsted County Bank & Trust Co. v. Pesch 16 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1944
    Sergeant v. Ruble, 33 Minn. 354 , Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132, at 137 ; American Bldg.
  • Taber v. Rathbun 210 N.W. 95 Minn. 1926
  • Taber v. Rathbun 210 N.W. 95 Minn. 1926
    In Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 , it was held that the statute requiring the affidavit must be substantially complied with and that there is not a sufficient compliance when the sheriff and the lien-holder seeking to redeem compute the amount due on the lien and no affidavit is made in which the amount due is set forth.
  • Olson v. Nannestad 203 N.W. 59 Minn. 1925
  • Olson v. Nannestad 203 N.W. 59 Minn. 1925
    Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 ; Am.
  • Rambeck v. La Bree 194 N.W. 643 Minn. 1923
  • Rambeck v. La Bree 194 N.W. 643 Minn. 1923
    Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 441 (496); Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132, 140 .
  • Moore v. Penney 170 N.W. 599 Minn. 1919
  • Moore v. Penney 170 N.W. 599 Minn. 1919
    Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 ; Cuilerier v. Brunelle, 37 Minn. 71 , ; State v. Kerr, 51 Minn. 417 , ; Bartleson v. Munson, 105 Minn. 348
  • Lightbody v. Lammers 108 N.W. 846 Minn. 1906
  • Lightbody v. Lammers 108 N.W. 846 Minn. 1906
    Young, J., in Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 ; Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 441 (496); Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 533 , , 4 L. R. A. 196, 12 Am.
  • Hunter v. Mauseau 97 N.W. 651 Minn. 1903
  • Hunter v. Mauseau 97 N.W. 651 Minn. 1903
    Under the holding in Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 , all that was necessary to produce in order to effect a redemption were the originals.
  • Ritchie v. Ege 59 N.W. 1020 Minn. 1894
  • Ritchie v. Ege 59 N.W. 1020 Minn. 1894
    Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 .
  • Buchanan v. Reid 45 N.W. 11 Minn. 1890
  • Buchanan v. Reid 45 N.W. 11 Minn. 1890
    The matter was before the court, but not decided, in Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 .
  • Sardeson v. Menage 43 N.W. 66 Minn. 1889
  • Followed Sardeson v. Menage 43 N.W. 66 Minn. 1889
    And, as to these questions, we adhere to the rule laid down in Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 , and Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.
  • Martin v. Sprague 11 N.W. 143 Minn. 1882
  • Martin v. Sprague 11 N.W. 143 Minn. 1882
    1878, c. 81, § 16; and see Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 ; Willis v. Jelineck, 27 Minn. 18 .
  • Pamperin v. Scanlan 9 N.W. 868 Minn. 1881
  • Pamperin v. Scanlan 9 N.W. 868 Minn. 1881
    People v. Ransom, 4 Denio, 145 ; Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 441 (496;) Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 .
  • Sohroeder v. Lahrman 28 Minn. 75 Minn. 1881
  • Sohroeder v. Lahrman 28 Minn. 75 Minn. 1881
    Horton v. Maffitt, 14 Minn. 289 ; Davis v. Seymour, 16 Minn. 210 ; Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 ; Gilchrist v. Comfort, 34 N. Y. 235 .
  • Willis v. Jelineck 6 N.W. 373 Minn. 1880
  • Willis v. Jelineck 6 N.W. 373 Minn. 1880
    Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 441 (496;) Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 .