Cited by

Rahm v. Cummings, 131 Minn. 141 , ; Leslie v. Mathwig, 131 Minn. 159 , ; Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

Such questions as whether it is a contract by the wife to acquire from the plaintiff title to the husband’s property Avhich plaintiff purchased at the mortgage foreclosure sale, as in Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 (see Locke v. Darelius, 140 Minn. 206 , ) ; or whether it is an extension of time of payment whereby the plaintiff waived and abandoned the rights which she acquired as purchaser at the mortgage foreclosure sale, and in legal effect annulled the sale and continued the relation of m

But among those which have been cited to us are the following: Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Holliday v. Hubbard, 45 Minn. 333 , 47 N.W.

It is perhaps true that Counsel was mistaken, for there appears little or no difference between the agreement in question and the one in Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 , so far as affected by the statute of frauds.

Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Shepard v. Carpenter, 54 Minn. 153 , ; Rahm v. Cummings, 131 Minn. 141 , ; Leslie v. Mathwig, 131 Minn. 159 , ; Appleby v. Dysinger, 137 Minn. 382 , .

Rahm v. Cummings, 131 Minn. 141 , ; Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

The material terms of the contract in the ease at bar appear less clearly than those in the Rahm case, or those in the case of Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 , is decisive of this.

We think the principle announced in Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 , is applicable and controls here.

The case of Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 , is not in point.

Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 198 (219) ; Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Brown v. Hoag, 35 Minn. 373 , ; Veum v. Sheeran, 95 Minn. 315 , .

Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Herber v. Christopherson, 30 Minn. 395 , ; Roberts v. Meighen, 74 Minn. 273 , .

Counsel for plaintiff cited and relied upon the case of Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

The general rule is followed and applied in Atkins v. Little, 17 Minn. 320 (342); Place v. Johnson, 20 Minn. 198 (219); Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 ; Slingerland v. Slingerland, 39 Minn. 197 , ; Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 350 , .

Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 55 (72); Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .

This amount was, by the terms of the agreement, as alleged in the complaint, to be paid “from time to time.” The defendant’s counsel cites Williams v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516 .