Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Woodcock v. Carlson, 43 N.W. 479.

26 citing documents.

Gallager v. Nelson 383 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gallager v. Nelson 383 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542, 546 , 43 N.W.
University Community Properties v. New Riverside Cafe 268 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1978
University Community Properties v. New Riverside Cafe 268 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1978
Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542, 545 , 43 N.W.
State v. Brown 282 N.W. 136 Minn. 1938
State v. Brown 282 N.W. 136 Minn. 1938
Jones, Landlord and Tenant, § 502, p. 582; Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542 , .
Crain v. Baumgartner 256 N.W. 671 Minn. 1934
Crain v. Baumgartner 256 N.W. 671 Minn. 1934
R. 228; Nash v. Sullivan, 32 Minn. 189 , ; Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542 , ; Ault-man & Taylor Co. v. O’Dowd, 73 Minn. 58 , , 72 A. S. R. 603; Bloemendal v. Albrecht, 79 Minn. 304 , ; Lake v. Lund, 92 Minn. 280 , ; Schuchard v. St.
Roehrs v. Thompson 240 N.W. 111 Minn. 1932
Roehrs v. Thompson 240 N.W. 111 Minn. 1932
For defendants, Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542, 544 , , is cited.
Schuchard v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. 222 N.W. 292 Minn. 1928
Schuchard v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co. 222 N.W. 292 Minn. 1928
rule that crops raised and harvested by a trespasser, a disseisor or tenant holding over, or mortgagor holding over after the expiration of the time for redemption from foreclosure sale, belong to him who so raises and harvests them, is recognized in Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542, 546 , , and in Lake v. Lund, 92 Minn. 280 , .
Graceville State Bank v. Hofschild 206 N.W. 948 Minn. 1926
Graceville State Bank v. Hofschild 206 N.W. 948 Minn. 1926
603; Marks v. Jones, 71 Minn. 136 , ; Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542 , ; Lake v. Lund, 92 Minn. 280 , .
Lake v. Lund 99 N.W. 884 Minn. 1904
Lake v. Lund 99 N.W. 884 Minn. 1904
P. R. Co., 29 Minn. 411 , ; Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542 , ; Aultman & Taylor Co. v. O’Dowd, 73 Minn. 58 , .
Seeger v. Smith 77 N.W. 3 Minn. 1898
Seeger v. Smith 77 N.W. 3 Minn. 1898
The case of Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542 , , relied on by the defendants, is in entire harmony with this conclusion.
Aultman & Taylor Co. v. O'Dowd 75 N.W. 756 Minn. 1898
Aultman & Taylor Co. v. O'Dowd 75 N.W. 756 Minn. 1898
In the case of Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542 , , it was said, at page 546, that “It is the settled rule in this state that, with respect to crops which are the result wholly of the labor of the disseisor and which he has severed and removed from the premises while still in possession, the title is in him, and that the sole remedy of the owner of the
Marks v. Jones 73 N.W. 719 Minn. 1898
Marks v. Jones 73 N.W. 719 Minn. 1898
See Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542 , .
Woodcock v. Carlson 52 N.W. 142 Minn. 1892
Woodcock v. Carlson 52 N.W. 142 Minn. 1892
Collins, J. After the former appeal in this action was disposed of,—41 Minn. 542, ( 43 N. W. Rep.
Suchaneck v. Smith 47 N.W. 397 Minn. 1890
Suchaneck v. Smith 47 N.W. 397 Minn. 1890
Woodcock v. Carlson, 41 Minn. 542, 546 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.