Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74.

29 citing documents.

Farmers State Bank of Madelia, Inc. v. Burns 4 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1942
National Surety Co. v. Webster Lumber Co. 244 N.W. 290 Minn. 1932
National Surety Co. v. Webster Lumber Co. 244 N.W. 290 Minn. 1932
In McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74, 78 , this is said: “So soon as the surety pays the debt of his principal there arises in his' favor an equity to have the securities held by the creditor for his debt turned over to him, and to avail himself of them as fully as the creditor could have done.
Barrett Bros. Co. v. County of St. Louis 206 N.W. 49 Minn. 1925
Barrett Bros. Co. v. County of St. Louis 206 N.W. 49 Minn. 1925
The right of subrogation and its automatic equitable assignment “relate to the date of the suretyship, as against the principal and those claiming under him.” McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 .
Benson v. Saffert-Gugisberg Cement Con. Co. 201 N.W. 424 Minn. 1924
Benson v. Saffert-Gugisberg Cement Construction Co. 201 N.W. 424 Minn. 1924
Benson v. Saffert-Gugisberg Cement Con. Co. 201 N.W. 424 Minn. 1924
McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 ; Benson v. Saffert-G.C.C.
Benson v. Saffert-Gugisberg Cement Construction Co. 201 N.W. 424 Minn. 1924
McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 ; Benson v. Saffert-G.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rathbun 199 N.W. 561 Minn. 1924
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rathbun 199 N.W. 561 Minn. 1924
In McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 , it was said: “The right of subrogation and the equitable assignment relate to the date of the suretyship, as against the principal and those claiming under him.” This is reiterated in National Surety Co. v. Berggren, 126 Minn. 188 , .
National Surety Co. v. Berggren 148 N.W. 55 Minn. 1914
National Surety Co. v. Berggren 148 N.W. 55 Minn. 1914
McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 .
Koppang v. Steenerson 111 N.W. 153 Minn. 1907
Koppang v. Steenerson 111 N.W. 153 Minn. 1907
McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 .
Keith v. Albrecht 94 N.W. 677 Minn. 1903
Keith v. Albrecht 94 N.W. 677 Minn. 1903
Now, if the debtor, as between himself and his creditors, had the equitable right to have the nonexempt part of his land first applied to the payment of the lien for the unpaid purchase price upon it and his homestead, precisely as if the land had been deeded to him and a purchase-price mortgage given back (see McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 , and Horton v. Kelly, supra), the case would fall within the doctrine of Baldwin v. Rogers, supra.
Merchants' National Bank of Crookston v. Stanton 56 N.W. 821 Minn. 1893
Merchants' National Bank of Crookston v. Stanton 56 N.W. 821 Minn. 1893
In McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 , we held that where A. held a mortgage on two tracts of land, one of which was the homestead of the mortgagor, and B. held a judgment .against him which was a lien only on the other tract, A. would not be compelled to resort to the homestead first in order to leave the .other tract as far as may be to B. This was upo
Blake v. Boisjoli 53 N.W. 637 Minn. 1892
Blake v. Boisjoli 53 N.W. 637 Minn. 1892
the payment of the mortgage, McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 ; Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 193 , ( 41 N. W. Rep.
Miller v. McCarty 50 N.W. 235 Minn. 1891
Miller v. McCarty 50 N.W. 235 Minn. 1891
In McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 , and Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 193 , ( 41 N. W. Rep.
Horton v. Kelly 41 N.W. 1031 Minn. 1889
Horton v. Kelly 41 N.W. 1031 Minn. 1889
McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 .
Torp v. Gulseth 33 N.W. 550 Minn. 1887
Torp v. Gulseth 33 N.W. 550 Minn. 1887
McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 ; Brandt, Sur.
Conner v. Howe 29 N.W. 314 Minn. 1886
Conner v. Howe 29 N.W. 314 Minn. 1886
234; McArthur v. Martin, 23 Minn. 74 ; Felton v. Bissel, 25 Minn. 15 ; City of Keokuk v. Love, 31 Iowa, 119 ; 1 Lead.