Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 44 N.W. 2.

32 citing documents.

Winter Wolff & Co. v. Co-Op Lead & Chemical Co. 111 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1961
Winter Wolff & Co. v. Co-Op Lead & Chemical Co. 111 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1961
[3] Mr. Justice Mitchell pioneered the doctrine of accord and satisfaction in Minnesota in Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , 44 N.W.
Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
Plaintiff points out that although it might be urged that Rye v. Phillips, 203 Minn. 567 , , 119 A. L. R. 1120, has abrogated or changed the principles of law on accord and satisfaction set forth in the leading cases of Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , , and Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214 , , a close reading of the Rye case indicates that that case is no more than authority for the principle that an agreement by a creditor to accept less than the amount due on a liquidate
Yates v. Gamble 268 N.W. 670 Minn. 1936
Yates v. Gamble 268 N.W. 670 Minn. 1936
Co. 30 Minn. 482 , ; Trask v. Shotwell, 41 Minn. 66 , ; Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , ; Sage v. Larson, 69 Minn. 122 , ; Martin v. Courtney, 87 Minn. 197 , ; Dorgeloh v. Mark, 183 Minn. 265 , .
Leighton v. Bancamerica-Blair Corp. 256 N.W. 848 Minn. 1934
Leighton v. Bancamerica-Blair Corp. 256 N.W. 848 Minn. 1934
Burrill v. Crossman (C. C. A.) 91 F. 543, 544 ; Hillestad v. Lee, 91 Minn. 335 , ; Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , ; *226 Preston v. Grant, 34 Vt. 201, 203 ; Van Dyke v. Wilder & Co. 66 Vt. 579 , 29 A. 1016 ; Eames V. B. Co. v. Prosser, 157 N. Y. 289 , 51 N. E. 986 .
McElroy v. Board of Education 238 N.W. 681 Minn. 1931
McElroy v. Board of Education 238 N.W. 681 Minn. 1931
Both parties having rested, the decision necessarily ivas on the merits (Duluth C. of C. v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , , distinguishing Woodling v. Knickerbocker, 31 Minn. 268 , ) and the issues involved became res judicata.
Jones v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 207 N.W. 179 Minn. 1926
Jones v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 207 N.W. 179 Minn. 1926
Thompson Yards Inc. v. Jastrow, 163 Minn. 329 , ; Duluth C. of C. v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 299 , ; Demeules v. Jewel Tea Co. 103 Minn. 150 , , 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 954, 123 Am.
Thompson Yards, Inc. v. Jastrow 203 N.W. 960 Minn. 1925
Thompson Yards, Inc. v. Jastrow 203 N.W. 960 Minn. 1925
315; Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , .
Tupper v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance 194 N.W. 99 Minn. 1923
Tupper v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance 194 N.W. 99 Minn. 1923
Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , .
C. W. La Moure Co. v. Cuyuna-Mille Lacs Iron Co. 180 N.W. 540 Minn. 1920
C. W. La Moure Co. v. Cuyuna-Mille Lacs Iron Co. 180 N.W. 540 Minn. 1920
Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , .
Isaacs v. Wishnick 162 N.W. 297 Minn. 1917
Isaacs v. Wishnick 162 N.W. 297 Minn. 1917
Nor will the mere retention by the creditor of-money which he is beyond dispute entitled to receive, amount to an accord and satisfaction, even though it is stated by the debtor to be payment in full of the demand, Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , .
Foster County State Bank v. Lammers 134 N.W. 501 Minn. 1912
Foster County State Bank v. Lammers 134 N.W. 501 Minn. 1912
Duluth Cham *97 ber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , ; Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214 , ; Ness v. Minnesota & Colorado Co. 87 Minn. 413 , ; Byrnes v. Byrnes, 92 Minn. 73 , ; Hoidale v. Wood, 93 Minn. 190 , ; Demeules v. Jewel Tea Co. 103 Minn. 150 , , 14 L.R.A.
Demeules v. Jewel Tea Co. 114 N.W. 733 Minn. 1908
Demeules v. Jewel Tea Co. 114 N.W. 733 Minn. 1908
Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , ; Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214 , ; Ness v. Minnesota & Colorado Co., 87 Minn. 413 , ; Byrnes v. Byrnes, 92 Minn. 73, 75 , ; Hoidale v. Wood, 93 Minn. 190 , , and cases cited in 1 Cyc.
Ness v. Minnesota & Colorado Co. 92 N.W. 333 Minn. 1902
Ness v. Minnesota & Colorado Co. 92 N.W. 333 Minn. 1902
Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , ; Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214 , .
Johnson v. Simmons 78 N.W. 863 Minn. 1899
Johnson v. Simmons 78 N.W. 863 Minn. 1899
See Duluth Chamber of C. v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , ; Marion v. Heimbach, 62 Minn. 214 , .
Marion v. Heimbach 64 N.W. 386 Minn. 1895
Marion v. Heimbach 64 N.W. 386 Minn. 1895
Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , .
Bowen v. City of Minneapolis 49 N.W. 683 Minn. 1891
Bowen v. City of Minneapolis 49 N.W. 683 Minn. 1891
Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn. 229 , ( 44 N. W. Rep.