Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Paine v. Smith, 24 N.W. 305.

28 citing documents.

Anchor Casualty Co. v. Bird Island Produce, Inc. 82 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1957
Anchor Casualty Co. v. Bird Island Produce, Inc. 82 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1957
This interpretation is *144 not consonant with the plain and unambiguous language of exhibits G, H, and I. Mr. Justice Mitchell in Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495, 499 , , said: “* * * The proposition is not to explain the terms used by the parties, or to annex a mere incident to the contract not inconsistent with what was expressed, but to make an entirely new contract by imposing on the party who has entered into one contract another and different obligation
In Re Psychopathic Personality of Dittrich 9 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1943
In Re Psychopathic Personality of Dittrich 9 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 1943
Assuming that there are cases where the court in its discretion may vary the order of proof (see Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ; In re Guardianship of Strom, 205 Minn. 399 , , supra,), no reason appears for having required appellant to proceed first with his evidence.
Johnson Hardware Co. v. Kempf 246 N.W. 663 Minn. 1933
Johnson Hardware Co. v. Kempf 246 N.W. 663 Minn. 1933
“An ‘indorsement’ of a bill or note is not merely a transfer of the title, but a fresh and substantive contract, by which the in-dorser becomes a party to the bill or note, and liable for its payment on certain conditions.” Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495, 498 , .
Stein v. Shapiro 176 N.W. 54 Minn. 1920
Stein v. Shapiro 176 N.W. 54 Minn. 1920
Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ; McDonald v. Union Hay Co. 143 Minn. 40 , .
McDonald v. Union Hay Co. 172 N.W. 891 Minn. 1919
McDonald v. Union Hay Co. 172 N.W. 891 Minn. 1919
Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ; Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Elev.
Stevens v. Wisconsin Farm Land Co. 145 N.W. 173 Minn. 1914
Stevens v. Wisconsin Farm Land Co. 145 N.W. 173 Minn. 1914
Anthony Falls W. P. Co. v. Eastman, 20 Minn. 249 (277); Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ; Clarke v. Hall & D. L. Co. 41 Minn. 105 , .
E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co. 142 N.W. 828 Minn. 1913
E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co. 142 N.W. 828 Minn. 1913
Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , .
Viehman v. Boelter 116 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1908
Viehman v. Boelter 116 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1908
Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , .
Torpey v. Murray 101 N.W. 609 Minn. 1904
Torpey v. Murray 101 N.W. 609 Minn. 1904
Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ; Globe Milling Co. v. v. Minneapolis Elevator Co., 44 Minn. 153 , ; Healey v. Mannheimer, 74 Minn. 240 , .
Maurin v. Lyon 72 N.W. 72 Minn. 1897
Maurin v. Lyon 72 N.W. 72 Minn. 1897
See, also, Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ; Olson v. Sharpless, 53 Minn. 91 , ; Merchant v. Howell, 53 Minn. 295 , .
Merchant v. Howell 55 N.W. 131 Minn. 1893
Merchant v. Howell 55 N.W. 131 Minn. 1893
It was well said in Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.
C. Aultman & Co. v. Falkum 50 N.W. 471 Minn. 1891
C. Aultman & Co. v. Falkum 50 N.W. 471 Minn. 1891
This provision was considered in Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.
Buck v. Hutchins 47 N.W. 808 Minn. 1891
Buck v. Hutchins 47 N.W. 808 Minn. 1891
Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.
Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Elevator Co. 46 N.W. 306 Minn. 1890
Globe Milling Co. v. Minneapolis Elevator Co. 46 N.W. 306 Minn. 1890
Paine v. Smith, 33 Minn. 495 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by