DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite George v. Conhaim, 37 N.W. 791.

34 citing documents.

  • Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
  • Radke v. Brenon 134 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1965
    3 This case thus differs from a case where no consideration at all is mentioned, such as William Weisman Realty Co. v. Cohen, 157 Minn. 161 , , or where the consideration expressed cannot be identified with reasonable certainty, as in George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , .
  • Kennedy v. Hasse 114 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1962
  • Kennedy v. Hasse 114 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 1962
    He points out that the contract is silent as to the nature of the property to be covered by the factors lien or mortgage, and cites the following cases as controlling: George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Rahm v. Cummings, 131 Minn. 141 , ; Leslie v. Mathwig, 131 Minn. 159 , ; Holliday v. Hubbard, 45 Minn. 333 , .
  • Stacey v. Taylor 264 N.W. 809 Minn. 1936
  • Stacey v. Taylor 264 N.W. 809 Minn. 1936
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Geray v. Mahnomen Land Co. 143 Minn. 383 , ; Gregory v. Christian, 42 Minn. 304 , , 18 A. S. R. 507.
  • Elder v. Elwell 220 N.W. 415 Minn. 1928
  • Elder v. Elwell 220 N.W. 415 Minn. 1928
    In George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , , it was held that a vendee under a contract for deed was entitled to a deed from the vendor with perfect title of.
  • Rathborne, Hair & Ridgway Co. v. Coffron 217 N.W. 501 Minn. 1928
  • Rathborne, Hair & Ridgway Co. v. Coffron 217 N.W. 501 Minn. 1928
    Mathews v. Mulvey, 38 Minn. 312 , ; Gulledge Brothers Lbr.
  • Joslyn v. Irwin-Dick Co. 209 N.W. 889 Minn. 1926
  • Joslyn v. Irwin-Dick Co. 209 N.W. 889 Minn. 1926
    The following may be noted as involving some features similar to the situation here, and to that extent helpful: George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Horn v. Butler, 39 Minn. 515 , ; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29 , , 69 L. R. A. 785; Joslyn v. Schwend, 85 Minn. 130 , ; Howe v. Coates, 97 Minn. 385 , , *276 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1170, 114 Am.
  • Paynesville Land Co. v. Grabow 200 N.W. 481 Minn. 1924
  • Paynesville Land Co. v. Grabow 200 N.W. 481 Minn. 1924
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Steiner v. Zwickey, 41 Minn. 448 , ; Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 112 Minn. 388 , , 21 Ann. Cas.
  • McChesney v. Oppek 194 N.W. 882 Minn. 1923
  • McChesney v. Oppek 194 N.W. 882 Minn. 1923
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Steiner v. Zwickey, 41 Minn. 448 , ; Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 112 Minn. 388 , , 21 Ann. Cas.
  • Johnson v. Herbst 167 N.W. 356 Minn. 1918
  • Johnson v. Herbst 167 N.W. 356 Minn. 1918
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Horn v. Butler, 39 Minn. 515 , ; Gregory v. Christian, 42 Minn. 304 , , 18 Am.
  • Unruh v. Roemer 160 N.W. 251 Minn. 1916
  • Unruh v. Roemer 160 N.W. 251 Minn. 1916
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 112 Minn. 388 , , 21 Ann. Cas.
  • Schlemmer v. Nelson 142 N.W. 1041 Minn. 1913
  • Schlemmer v. Nelson 142 N.W. 1041 Minn. 1913
    837; George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , .
  • Williams v. Gilbert 139 N.W. 502 Minn. 1913
  • Williams v. Gilbert 139 N.W. 502 Minn. 1913
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , .
  • Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 128 N.W. 459 Minn. 1910
  • Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 128 N.W. 459 Minn. 1910
    That being the case, under the authority of George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , , and Steiner v. Zwickey, 41 Minn. 448 , , respondents were not bound to accept the deed of a third party, and were justified in rejecting the title as it appeared of record on the face of the abstract.
  • Dosch v. Andrus 126 N.W. 1071 Minn. 1910
  • Dosch v. Andrus 126 N.W. 1071 Minn. 1910
    Steiner v. Zwickey, 41 Minn. 448 , ; George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Adams v. Henderson, 168 U. S. 573 , 18 Sup.
  • Howe v. Coates 107 N.W. 397 Minn. 1906
  • Howe v. Coates 107 N.W. 397 Minn. 1906
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , .
  • Swallow v. Strong 85 N.W. 942 Minn. 1901
  • Swallow v. Strong 85 N.W. 942 Minn. 1901
    George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , ; Nippolt v. Kammon, 39 Minn. 372 , ; Burgon v. Cabanne, 42 Minn. 267 , .
  • Holliday v. Hubbard 47 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1891
  • Holliday v. Hubbard 47 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1891
    In the respect mentioned the contract is not materially different from that in George v. Conhaim, 38 Minn. 338 , (3 7 N. W. Rep.