Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCall v. Bushnell, 42 N.W. 545.

30 citing documents.

Hentges v. Schuttler 77 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1956
Hentges v. Schuttler 77 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1956
2 McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Giller v. First Nat.
Fornaro v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 234 N.W. 300 Minn. 1931
Fornaro v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 234 N.W. 300 Minn. 1931
Co. 36 Minn. 399 , ; McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Christianson v. C. St.
Lindblood v. Warren Mining Co. 194 N.W. 778 Minn. 1923
Lindblood v. Warren Mining Co. 194 N.W. 778 Minn. 1923
McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Summit Mercantile Co. v. Daigle, 146 Minn. 218 , ; Stitt v. Rat Portage Lumber Co. 96 Minn. 27 , .
Giller v. First National Bank 186 N.W. 816 Minn. 1922
Giller v. First National Bank 186 N.W. 816 Minn. 1922
Cummings v. Baars, 36 Minn. 350 , ; McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Oxford v. Nichols & Shepherd Co. 57 Minn. 206 , ; Jumiska v. Andrews, 87 Minn. 515 , ; Cox v. Edwards, 120 Minn. 512 , ; Summit Mercantile Co. v. Daigle, 146 Minn. 218 , .
Summit Mercantile Co. v. Daigle 178 N.W. 588 Minn. 1920
Summit Mercantile Co. v. Daigle 178 N.W. 588 Minn. 1920
McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Stitt v. Eat Portage Lumber Co. 96 Minn. 27 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Rosenberg v. Nelson 177 N.W. 659 Minn. 1920
Rosenberg v. Nelson 177 N.W. 659 Minn. 1920
McCall v. Bush-nell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Minneapolis, St.
Kautenberger v. Johnson 154 N.W. 943 Minn. 1915
Kautenberger v. Johnson 154 N.W. 943 Minn. 1915
Jumiska v. Andrews, 87 Minn. 515 , ; McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Michaud v. Eisenmenger, 46 Minn. 405 , .
Cox v. Edwards 139 N.W. 1070 Minn. 1913
Cox v. Edwards 139 N.W. 1070 Minn. 1913
The law is to the effect that the written instrument “becomes a ‘strong wall of evidence not to be lightly overcome by unsatisfactory oral testimony.” McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , .
Schmeisser v. Albinson 138 N.W. 775 Minn. 1912
Schmeisser v. Albinson 138 N.W. 775 Minn. 1912
Jumiska v. Andrews, 87 Minn. 515 , ; Dart v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 74 Minn. 426 , ; Oxford v. Nichols & Shepherd Co. 57 Minn. 206 , ; Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 150 , ; McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , .
Jumiska v. Andrews 92 N.W. 470 Minn. 1902
Jumiska v. Andrews 92 N.W. 470 Minn. 1902
McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , .
Dart v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 77 N.W. 288 Minn. 1898
Dart v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 77 N.W. 288 Minn. 1898
Follansbee v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 311 , ; McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ; Minneapolis, St.
Oxford v. Nichols & Shepherd Co. 58 N.W. 865 Minn. 1894
Oxford v. Nichols & Shepherd Co. 58 N.W. 865 Minn. 1894
If, as said in McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ( ,) “the instrument itself, knowingly executed, becomes a strong ‘wall of evidence,’ not to be lightly overcome by unsatisfactory oral testimony,” a verdict against the instrument on such evidence as the foregoing cannot be sustained.
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Chisholm 57 N.W. 63 Minn. 1893
Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Chisholm 57 N.W. 63 Minn. 1893
§ 932; McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.
Michaud v. Eisenmenger 49 N.W. 202 Minn. 1891
Michaud v. Eisenmenger 49 N.W. 202 Minn. 1891
McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37, ( 42 N. W. Rep.
Maxfield v. Schwartz 47 N.W. 448 Minn. 1890
Maxfield v. Schwartz 47 N.W. 448 Minn. 1890
McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.