Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Farnham v. Thompson, 26 N.W. 9.

51 citing documents.

Kronschnabel v. City of Saint Paul 137 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1965
Criticized Kronschnabel v. City of Saint Paul 137 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1965
Jur., Estates, § 71; Annotation, 15 A. L. R. (2d) 975; Restatement, Property, § 44; Loomis v. City of Boston, 331 Mass. 129 , 117 N. E. (2d) 539; Mission Covenant Church v. Nelson, 253 Minn. 230 , 91 N. W. (2d) 440 ; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , ; Soukup v. Topka, 54 Minn. 66 , ; Flaten v. City of Moorhead, 51 Minn. 518 , , 19 L. R. A. 195.
Schaeffer v. Newberry 50 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1951
Schaeffer v. Newberry 50 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1951
See, Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , .
Johnson v. Johnson 27 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1947
Johnson v. Johnson 27 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1947
It is convenient to be able to raise the question by direct appeal without the entry of judgment or the settlement of a case or bill of exceptions.” See, also, Ames v. Richardson, 29 Minn. 380 , ; Cool-baugh v. Roemer, 32 Minn. 445 , ; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
Schaefer v. Thoeny 273 N.W. 190 Minn. 1937
Schaefer v. Thoeny 273 N.W. 190 Minn. 1937
“In the absence of fraud, undue influence or mistake, releases between coheirs of their rights in real or personal property, and agreements entered into between them for a division of the estate, are valid and Avill be enforced.” Other cases having a bearing upon this phase are Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Probate Court 271 N.W. 879 Minn. 1937
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Probate Court 271 N.W. 879 Minn. 1937
Lindekugel v. Probate Court, 33 Minn. 94 , ; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
Barnes v. Verry 218 N.W. 551 Minn. 1928
Barnes v. Verry 218 N.W. 551 Minn. 1928
Farnham v Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
O'Brien v. Lien 199 N.W. 914 Minn. 1924
O'Brien v. Lien 199 N.W. 914 Minn. 1924
Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
Davidson v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 197 N.W. 833 Minn. 1924
Davidson v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 197 N.W. 833 Minn. 1924
In Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
Furst v. Lacher 182 N.W. 720 Minn. 1921
Furst v. Lacher 182 N.W. 720 Minn. 1921
Co. supra; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330, 337 , , 57 Am.
Holmstrom v. Barstad 179 N.W. 737 Minn. 1920
Holmstrom v. Barstad 179 N.W. 737 Minn. 1920
Faraham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
State ex rel. Hilton v. Probate Court 172 N.W. 902 Minn. 1919
Rogers v. Benz 161 N.W. 395 Minn. 1917
Rogers v. Benz 161 N.W. 395 Minn. 1917
See Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , 26 N W. 9, 57 Am.
Brown v. Strom 129 N.W. 136 Minn. 1910
Brown v. Strom 129 N.W. 136 Minn. 1910
State v. Probate Court of Sibley County, 33 Minn. 94 , ; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
State ex rel. Union National Bank v. Probate Court 115 N.W. 173 Minn. 1908
State ex rel. Union National Bank v. Probate Court 115 N.W. 173 Minn. 1908
In Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Hanson 112 N.W. 217 Minn. 1907
Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Hanson 112 N.W. 217 Minn. 1907
Co., 97 Minn. 334 , ; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330, 337 , , 57 Am.
Chambers v. Great Northern Power Co. 110 N.W. 1128 Minn. 1907
Chambers v. Great Northern Power Co. 110 N.W. 1128 Minn. 1907
Appellant calls attention to the cases of Soukup v. Topka, 54 Minn. 66 , , and Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
McCue v. Barrett 109 N.W. 594 Minn. 1906
McCue v. Barrett 109 N.W. 594 Minn. 1906
689, 708; Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , , 57 Am.
Lumbermen's Insurance v. City of St. Paul 85 N.W. 525 Minn. 1901
Lumbermen's Insurance v. City of St. Paul 85 N.W. 525 Minn. 1901
otion was based upon the findings of the court; and the ground of the motion was as follows: “That the court’s conclusions of law made and filed herein upon the trial of this action are not justified by the findings of fact made and filed with the said conclusions of law.” The only time this question was ever presented in this court, so far as we are aware, was in the case of Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , .
Starkey v. Sweeney 73 N.W. 859 Minn. 1898
Starkey v. Sweeney 73 N.W. 859 Minn. 1898
Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , ; Kleeberg v. Schrader, 69 Minn. 136 , .
Kleeberg v. Schrader 72 N.W. 59 Minn. 1897
Kleeberg v. Schrader 72 N.W. 59 Minn. 1897
Farnham v. Thompson, 31 Minn. 330 , .
Dobberstein v. Murphy 66 N.W. 204 Minn. 1896
Dobberstein v. Murphy 66 N.W. 204 Minn. 1896
Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , ; Dobberstein v. Murphy, supra.
Tilleny v. Wolverton 55 N.W. 822 Minn. 1893
Soukup v. Topka 55 N.W. 824 Minn. 1893
Tilleny v. Wolverton 55 N.W. 822 Minn. 1893
472 ;) Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.
Soukup v. Topka 55 N.W. 824 Minn. 1893
As counsel rest their whole case upon the proposition that the deed conveyed only an easement, and do not make the point that if it conveyed a fee it was only a conditional one, we have no occasion to consider that point further than to say that the clause referred to would not, of itself, create a condition subsequent, within the doctrine of Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad v. Singer 51 N.W. 905 Minn. 1892
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad v. Singer 51 N.W. 905 Minn. 1892
See, also, Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330, 337 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.
Dobberstein v. Murphy 47 N.W. 171 Minn. 1890
Dobberstein v. Murphy 47 N.W. 171 Minn. 1890
Upon this point the case cannot be distinguished from Farnham v. Thompson, 34 Minn. 330 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.
Mousseau v. Mousseau 41 N.W. 977 Minn. 1889