DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Frankoviz v. Smith, 26 N.W. 225.

44 citing documents.

  • Big Lake Lumber, Inc. v. Security Property Investments, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Big Lake Lumber, Inc. v. Security Property Investments, Inc. 820 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    See New Prague, 263 Minn, at 257-58, d at 12-13 (noting that “[w]here work, distinct in its nature, is performed at different times, the law supposes it performed under distinct engagements” and concluding that “the considerable lapse of time — more than 5 months — supports the conclusion that the second project was an afterthought”); Frankoviz v. Ireland, 34 Minn. 403, 406 , 26 N.W.
  • Rochester's Suburban Lumber Company v. Slocumb 163 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1968
  • Rochester's Suburban Lumber Company v. Slocumb 163 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1968
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , ; Northwestern L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 125 Minn. 107 , .
  • New Prague Lumber & Readi-Mix Co. v. Bastyr 117 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1962
  • New Prague Lumber & Readi-Mix Co. v. Bastyr 117 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1962
    In the early case of Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403, 406 , , this court observed: “A running account for materials furnished for the same general purpose is deemed an entire contract.
  • Kahle v. McClary 96 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1959
  • Kahle v. McClary 96 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1959
    Co. v. Spear, 140 Minn. 276 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , ; Coughlan v. Longini, 77 Minn. 514 , ; Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; 12 Dunnell, Dig.
  • Bank of Dassel v. March 235 N.W. 914 Minn. 1931
  • Bank of Dassel v. March 235 N.W. 914 Minn. 1931
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , 26 N.W.
  • Botsford Lumber Co. v. Fuller 212 N.W. 22 Minn. 1927
  • Botsford Lumber Co. v. Fuller 212 N.W. 22 Minn. 1927
    They invoke the doctrine of Benjamin v. Wilson, 34 Minn. 517 , ; Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Ernst, 102 Minn. 195 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , .
  • Lampert Lumber Co. v. Jeppeson 207 N.W. 22 Minn. 1926
  • Lampert Lumber Co. v. Jeppeson 207 N.W. 22 Minn. 1926
    Lundell v. Ahlman, *87 53 Minn. 57 , ; Coughlan v. Longini, 77 Minn. 514 , ; Northwestern L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 125 Minn. 107 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , ; Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , .
  • Banner Grain Co. v. Burr Farmers Elevator & Supply Co. 202 N.W. 740 Minn. 1925
  • Banner Grain Co. v. Burr Farmers Elevator & Supply Co. 202 N.W. 740 Minn. 1925
    American B. H. O. & S. M. Co. v. Thornton, 28 Minn. 419 , 10 N. W., 425 ; Memmer v. Carey, 30 Minn. 458 , ; Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Lebens v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 240, 246, 247 , .
  • Northland Pine Co. v. Newstrom 182 N.W. 612 Minn. 1921
  • Northland Pine Co. v. Newstrom 182 N.W. 612 Minn. 1921
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , ; see also 27 Cyc.
  • Villaume Box & Lumber Co. v. Condon 178 N.W. 492 Minn. 1920
  • Villaume Box & Lumber Co. v. Condon 178 N.W. 492 Minn. 1920
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Ernst, 102 Minn. 195 , ; N. W. L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 118 Minn. 211 , ; Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , .
  • Carr-Cullen Co. v. Cooper 175 N.W. 696 Minn. 1920
  • Carr-Cullen Co. v. Cooper 175 N.W. 696 Minn. 1920
    on this state of facts, we hold that appellant contributed to the erection of the six houses under and pursuant to the purposes of one general contract'with Cooper; that it had the right to file one lien statement for its entire claim embracing all of the eight lots, and that the provisions of section 7027, G. S. 1913, are applicable within the rules laid down by this court in Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Lax v. Peterson, 42 Minn. 214 , ; Gardner v. Leck, 52 Minn. 522 , ; Johnson v. Salt
  • Heimbach Lumber Co. v. Spear 167 N.W. 1041 Minn. 1918
  • Heimbach Lumber Co. v. Spear 167 N.W. 1041 Minn. 1918
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , ; Northwestern L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 125 Minn. 107 , .
  • Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick 161 N.W. 257 Minn. 1917
  • Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick 161 N.W. 257 Minn. 1917
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , ; North *59 western L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 125 Minn. 107 , 145 N W. 964.
  • Reed v. Horton 159 N.W. 1080 Minn. 1916
  • Reed v. Horton 159 N.W. 1080 Minn. 1916
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Ernst, 102 Minn. 195 , ; American.
  • American Bridge Co. v. Honstain 139 N.W. 619 Minn. 1913
  • American Bridge Co. v. Honstain 139 N.W. 619 Minn. 1913
    The language of Chief Justice Gilfillan, in Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , , is in point here: “Where a lien is claimed for different items, delivered at different times, the right is not necessarily a right to an independent lien for each item furnished.
  • Norton v. Wilkes 101 N.W. 619 Minn. 1904
  • Norton v. Wilkes 101 N.W. 619 Minn. 1904
    McArdle v. McArdle, 12 Minn. 53 (98); Smith v. Dennett, 15 Minn. 59 (81); Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Seibert v. Minneapolis & St.
  • Seibert v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. 59 N.W. 822 Minn. 1894
  • Seibert v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. 59 N.W. 822 Minn. 1894
    the syllabus written by the court is as follows: “The objection, made for the first time in the Supreme Court on appeal from a judgment by default, that the complaint does not state a cause of action, should not be favored, and the judgment should be sustained if a cause of action is fairly inferable, by, any reasonable intendment, from the facts in the complaint.” See, also, Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ( .)
  • Spencer v. Haug 47 N.W. 794 Minn. 1891
  • Spencer v. Haug 47 N.W. 794 Minn. 1891
    621 ;) Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.
  • Tell v. Woodruff 47 N.W. 262 Minn. 1890
  • Tell v. Woodruff 47 N.W. 262 Minn. 1890
    This feature might not prove of any consequence, however; for if the conclusion reached in Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.
  • Linne v. Stout 43 N.W. 377 Minn. 1889
  • Linne v. Stout 43 N.W. 377 Minn. 1889
    one entire claim, (Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , 26 N. W. Rep.
  • Trebby v. Simmons 38 N.W. 693 Minn. 1888
  • Trebby v. Simmons 38 N.W. 693 Minn. 1888
    340 ;) Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.
  • Frankoviz v. Smith 28 N.W. 508 Minn. 1886
  • Frankoviz v. Smith 28 N.W. 508 Minn. 1886
    Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ( 26 N. W. Rep.