Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wakefield v. Day, 43 N.W. 71.

42 citing documents.

Franklin v. Hennepin County Department of Property Tax & Public Records 486 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Franklin v. Hennepin County Department of Property Tax & Public Records 486 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344, 348-49 , 43 N.W.
Kurz v. Gramhill 269 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1978
Kurz v. Gramhill 269 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1978
Paul to Register Title, 266 Minn. 304 , Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , 43 N.W.
McHardy v. State 9 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1943
McHardy v. State 9 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1943
Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ; Mitchell v. McFarland, 47 Minn. 535 , ; Eide v. Clarke, 57 Minn. 397 , ; Wallace v. Sache, 106 Minn. 123 , ; Pomroy v. Beattie, 139 Minn. 127 , ; Hutchinson v. Child, 164 Minn. 195 , ; Absetz v. McClellan, 207 Minn. 202
Lawrenz v. Langford Electric Co. 288 N.W. 727 Minn. 1939
Lawrenz v. Langford Electric Co. 288 N.W. 727 Minn. 1939
0, 631 , 8 A. S. R. 698, the court in that case saying: “In many cases it might put a defendant to great disadvantage if, when the complaint alleges only the fact of title, without disclosing by what means plaintiff claims to have acquired it, defendant must anticipate plaintiff’s evidence as to the source of title, and plead expressly facts to do away with the effect of it.” In Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , , plaintiff alleged title generally.
Buttruff v. Robinson 231 N.W. 414 Minn. 1930
Buttruff v. Robinson 231 N.W. 414 Minn. 1930
Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344, ; Towle v. Sherer, 70 Minn. 312 , ; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co. 104 Minn. 198 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Hutchinson v. Child 204 N.W. 648 Minn. 1925
Hutchinson v. Child 204 N.W. 648 Minn. 1925
See on principle: Mitchell v. McFarland, 47 Minn. 535 , ; Sperry v. Goodwin, 44 Minn. 207 , ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ; Western Land Assn. v. McComber, 41 Minn. 20 , ; Dun.
Nellas v. Carline 200 N.W. 602 Minn. 1924
Nellas v. Carline 200 N.W. 602 Minn. 1924
Backus v. Burke, 63 Minn. 272 , ; Jones v. Bradley T. & R. S. Co. 114 Minn. 415 , ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ; Terry v. Wilson’s Estate, 50 Minn. 570 , .
Whittaker v. Meeds 178 N.W. 597 Minn. 1920
Whittaker v. Meeds 178 N.W. 597 Minn. 1920
Herrick v. Churchill, 35 Minn. 318 , ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , .
Young v. Baker 151 N.W. 132 Minn. 1915
Young v. Baker 151 N.W. 132 Minn. 1915
Sloan v. Becker, 34 Minn. 491 , ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ; A. J. Dwyer Pine Land Co. v. Whiteman, 92 Minn. 55 , .
Rogers v. Clark Iron Co. 116 N.W. 739 Minn. 1908
Rogers v. Clark Iron Co. 116 N.W. 739 Minn. 1908
516 ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , .
Diamond v. Dennison 113 N.W. 696 Minn. 1907
Diamond v. Dennison 113 N.W. 696 Minn. 1907
That rule is that the evidence of the execution of an alleged lost instrument must be clear and strong “and its contents clearly established.” Towle v. Sherer, 70 Minn. 312 , ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ; Edwards v. Noyes, 65 N. Y. 125 .
Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Jones 103 N.W. 1017 Minn. 1905
Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Jones 103 N.W. 1017 Minn. 1905
Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344, 347 , ; Sloan v. Becker, 31 Minn. 414 , *132 and 34 Minn. 491 , .
A. J. Dwyer Pine Land Co. v. Whiteman 99 N.W. 362 Minn. 1904
A. J. Dwyer Pine Land Co. v. Whiteman 99 N.W. 362 Minn. 1904
In Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , , the court, citing Sloan v. Becker, 31 Minn. 414 , , say: “It must be clear and strong, and beyond reasonable doubt.” In Little v. Braun, 11 N. D. 410 , , the court cite with approval an earlier declaration of the law, viz.: “Courts have with great uniformity in this class of c
Wheeler v. Winnebago Paper Mills 64 N.W. 920 Minn. 1895
Overruled Wheeler v. Winnebago Paper Mills 64 N.W. 920 Minn. 1895
Myrick v. Coursalle, 32 Minn. 153 , ; Herrick v. Churchill, 35 Minn. 318 , ; Jellison v. Halloran, 40 Minn. 485 , ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ; Pinney v. Russell & Co., 52 Minn. 443 , .
Pinney v. Russell & Co. 54 N.W. 484 Minn. 1893
Pinney v. Russell & Co. 54 N.W. 484 Minn. 1893
392 ,) and cases cited; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.
Terry v. Wilson's Estate 52 N.W. 973 Minn. 1892
Terry v. Wilson's Estate 52 N.W. 973 Minn. 1892
Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.
Mitchell v. McFarland 50 N.W. 610 Minn. 1891
Mitchell v. McFarland 50 N.W. 610 Minn. 1891
543 ;) Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.
Casey v. McIntyre 48 N.W. 402 Minn. 1891
Casey v. McIntyre 48 N.W. 402 Minn. 1891
Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.
Adamson v. Wiggins 48 N.W. 185 Minn. 1891
Adamson v. Wiggins 48 N.W. 185 Minn. 1891
483 ; Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.
Marston v. Williams 47 N.W. 644 Minn. 1890
Marston v. Williams 47 N.W. 644 Minn. 1890
66 ;) Wakefield v. Day, 41 Minn. 344 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.
Parker v. Branch 43 N.W. 907 Minn. 1889
Parker v. Branch 43 N.W. 907 Minn. 1889
543 ,) and Wakefield v. Lay, 41 Minn. 344 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.