Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wilson v. Hayes, 42 N.W. 467.

40 citing documents.

The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
398, 400 (1924) (“Ratification means adoption of that which was done for and in the name of another.”) (quotation omitted); Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 538, 42 N.W.
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Renee C. Kinzer v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, David Kinzer, Parmount Title, LLC, Kelly Potratz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 540, 42 N.W.
Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 770 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 770 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2009
Warrick v. Graffiti, Inc. 550 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Warrick v. Graffiti, Inc. 550 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 347 , (quoting Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 540 , 42 N.W.
Bond v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1985
Bond v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1985
Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 540 , 42 N.W.
Remole v. Jonathan Development Corp. 277 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1979
Remole v. Jonathan Development Corp. 277 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1979
1103, 1104 (1900); see, Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , 42 N.W.
Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
Hartwig v. Loyal Order of Moose, Brainerd Lodge No. 1246 91 N.W.2d 794 Minn. 1958
It provides remedies unknown to the common law, and we have invariably held that it should be strictly construed, and that a plaintiff must bring himself clearly within its terms.” 4 See, Wunsewich v. Olson, 137 Minn. 98 , , 2 A. L. R. 560; Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , , 4 L. R. A. 196; White v. State ex rel.
Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
Olson v. Penkert 90 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1958
However, this court has consistently held beginning with Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 540 , , that “Parties can alter their contract by mutual consent, and this requires no new consideration, for it is merely the substitution of a new contract for the old one, and this is of itself a sufficient consideration for the new.” *348 Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , ; Mitchell
Tellock v. Backholm 54 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1952
Strader v. Haley 12 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1943
Strader v. Haley 12 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1943
89 (cited in Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 539 , , 12 A. S. R. 754, 4 L. R. A. 196), was decided and held that a “forgery” could not be ratified, at least where the purpose was to stifle prosecution of the forger.
Schlesinger v. Erickson 209 N.W. 632 Minn. 1926
Schlesinger v. Erickson 209 N.W. 632 Minn. 1926
This ruling is in accordance with the holding in Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , , 4 L. R. A. 196, 12 Am.
Healy-Owen-Hartzell Co. v. Montevideo Farmers & Merchants Elevator Co. 206 N.W. 646 Minn. 1925
Healy-Owen-Hartzell Co. v. Montevideo Farmers & Merchants Elevator Co. 206 N.W. 646 Minn. 1925
Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , , 4 L. R. A. 196, 12 Am.
Rambeck v. La Bree 194 N.W. 643 Minn. 1923
Rambeck v. La Bree 194 N.W. 643 Minn. 1923
Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , , 4 L. R. A. 196, 12 Am.
Wilson v. Geiss 190 N.W. 61 Minn. 1922
Cremer v. Wimmer, 40 Minn. 511 , ; Close v. Hodges, 44 Minn. 204 , .
O. N. Bull Remedy Co. v. Clark 124 N.W. 20 Minn. 1910
O. N. Bull Remedy Co. v. Clark 124 N.W. 20 Minn. 1910
Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , , 4 L. R. A. 196, 12 Am.
Lightbody v. Lammers 108 N.W. 846 Minn. 1906
Lightbody v. Lammers 108 N.W. 846 Minn. 1906
Young, J., in Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 ; Williams v. Lash, 8 Minn. 441 (496); Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531, 533 , , 4 L. R. A. 196, 12 Am.
Fletcher v. Minneapolis Fire & Marine Mutual Insurance 83 N.W. 29 Minn. 1900
Fletcher v. Minneapolis Fire & Marine Mutual Insurance 83 N.W. 29 Minn. 1900
The cases cited by appellant (notably, Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , ) do not apply, in view of the facts as found' by the court.
McLean v. Dean 69 N.W. 140 Minn. 1896
Lake v. Albert, 37 Minn. 453 , ; Cremer v. Wimmer, 40 Minn. 511 , ; Murphin v. Scovell, 44 Minn. 530 , .
Struckmeyer v. Lamb 65 N.W. 930 Minn. 1896
Lake v. Albert, 37 Minn. 453 , ; Cremer v. Wimmer, 40 Minn. 511 , ; Murphin v. Scovell, 44 Minn. 530 , .
First National Bank v. Holan 65 N.W. 952 Minn. 1896
First National Bank v. Holan 65 N.W. 952 Minn. 1896
Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , .
Todd v. Johnson 52 N.W. 864 Minn. 1892
Todd v. Johnson 52 N.W. 864 Minn. 1892
In Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.
Sardeson v. Menage 43 N.W. 66 Minn. 1889
Followed Sardeson v. Menage 43 N.W. 66 Minn. 1889
And, as to these questions, we adhere to the rule laid down in Tinkcom v. Lewis, 21 Minn. 132 , and Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.