Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Leeds v. Little, 44 N.W. 309.

47 citing documents.

Enviro-Fab, Inc. v. Blandin Paper Co. 349 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Enviro-Fab, Inc. v. Blandin Paper Co. 349 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
964 (1914); Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , 44 N.W.
Minnesota Home Rebuilding & Repair Co. v. Kraulik 67 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1954
Minnesota Home Rebuilding & Repair Co. v. Kraulik 67 N.W.2d 673 Minn. 1954
There the court stated ( 42 Minn. 289 , ): “* * * This sum being the agreed contract price for the work specified, as an entirety, no more detailed statement of the account was necessary, even if it was possible.” A like result was reached in Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414, 416 , , involving the erection of a dwelling house, where this court stated: “The objection to the statement for a lien is that it does not give the items of the labor and material, or their value, but is a mere statement in g
Sward v. Nash 40 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1950
Sward v. Nash 40 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1950
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Snider v. Peters Home Bldg.
Knutson v. Lasher 18 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1945
Knutson v. Lasher 18 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 1945
Co. 139 Minn. 413 , ; Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , .
Service & Security, Inc. v. St. Paul Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 300 N.W. 811 Minn. 1941
Service & Security, Inc. v. St. Paul Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 300 N.W. 811 Minn. 1941
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Lindquist v. Young, 119 Minn. 219 , ; Snider v. Peters Home Bldg.
Sampson v. Brince 177 N.W. 933 Minn. 1920
Sampson v. Brince 177 N.W. 933 Minn. 1920
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Snider v. Peters Home Building Co. 139 Minn. 413 , , and cases cited.
Middelstadt v. Kostendick 175 N.W. 553 Minn. 1919
Middelstadt v. Kostendick 175 N.W. 553 Minn. 1919
The doctrine of substantial performance of a contract as stated in such cases as Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , , and Snider v. Peters H. B. Co. 139 Minn. 413 , , was, without doubt, properly applied here.
McClure v. Village of Browns Valley 173 N.W. 672 Minn. 1919
McClure v. Village of Browns Valley 173 N.W. 672 Minn. 1919
The law was laid down in accordance with the principles stated in Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , , to which this court has repeatedly given its approval.
Snider v. Peters Home Building Co. 167 N.W. 108 Minn. 1918
Snider v. Peters Home Building Co. 167 N.W. 108 Minn. 1918
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357 , , 9 L. R. A. 52; Lindquist v. Young, 119 Minn. 219 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Orr v. Sutton 148 N.W. 1066 Minn. 1914
Northwestern Lumber & Wrecking Co. v. Parker 145 N.W. 964 Minn. 1914
Northwestern Lumber & Wrecking Co. v. Parker 145 N.W. 964 Minn. 1914
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414, 416 , .
Blakely v. J. Neils Lumber Co. 141 N.W. 179 Minn. 1913
Blakely v. J. Neils Lumber Co. 141 N.W. 179 Minn. 1913
This controversy must be determined upon the principles above stated, and as declared in Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , , and in Gray v. Village of New Paynesville, supra, and upon the question of variance raised in connection with the defendant’s motion for judgment, the case is controlled by Sykes v. City of St.
Lindquist v. Young 138 N.W. 28 Minn. 1912
Lindquist v. Young 138 N.W. 28 Minn. 1912
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ;.
Johnson v. Fehsefeldt 118 N.W. 797 Minn. 1908
Johnson v. Fehsefeldt 118 N.W. 797 Minn. 1908
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , .
Hoglund v. Sortedahl 112 N.W. 408 Minn. 1907
Hoglund v. Sortedahl 112 N.W. 408 Minn. 1907
And see Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357 , 45 N. W., 845 , 9 L. R. A. 52; Cornish, C. & G. Co. v. Antrim Co-operative Dairy Assn., 82 Minn. 215 , .
Hankee v. Arundel Realty Co. 108 N.W. 842 Minn. 1906
Hankee v. Arundel Realty Co. 108 N.W. 842 Minn. 1906
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; 4 Current Law, p. 621, § 4a.
Holt v. Sims 102 N.W. 386 Minn. 1905
Holt v. Sims 102 N.W. 386 Minn. 1905
O’Dea v. City of Winona, 41 Minn. 424 , ; Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Madden v. Oestrich, 46 Minn. 538 , ; Anderson v. Pringle, 79 Minn. 433 , .
Town of Birch Cooley v. First National Bank 90 N.W. 789 Minn. 1902
Town of Birch Cooley v. First National Bank 90 N.W. 789 Minn. 1902
Bixby v. Wilkinson, 25 Minn. 481 ; O’Dea v. City of Winona, 41 Minn. 424 , ; Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357 , ; Madden v. Oestrich, 46 Minn. 538 , ; Taylor v. Marcum, 60 Minn. 292 , ; Anderson v. Pringle, 79 Minn. 433 , ; Cornish, Curtis & Greene Co. v. Antrim Co-op.
Anderson v. Pringle 82 N.W. 682 Minn. 1900
Anderson v. Pringle 82 N.W. 682 Minn. 1900
O’Dea v. City of Winona, 41 Minn. 424 , ; Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357 , .
Taylor v. Marcum 62 N.W. 330 Minn. 1895
Taylor v. Marcum 62 N.W. 330 Minn. 1895
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ; O’Dea v. City of Winona, 41 Minn. 424 , .
McManus v. Duluth, Crookston & Northern R. 52 N.W. 980 Minn. 1892
Distinguished McManus v. Duluth, Crookston & Northern R. 52 N.W. 980 Minn. 1892
The case is distinguishable from those of which Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ( 44 N. W. Rep.
Madden v. Oestrich 49 N.W. 301 Minn. 1891
Madden v. Oestrich 49 N.W. 301 Minn. 1891
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ( 44 N. W. Rep.
Peterson v. Mayer 49 N.W. 245 Minn. 1891
Peterson v. Mayer 49 N.W. 245 Minn. 1891
Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ( 44 N. W. Rep.
Elliott v. Caldwell 45 N.W. 845 Minn. 1890
Elliott v. Caldwell 45 N.W. 845 Minn. 1890
They have not at all brought themselves within the liberal rule of “substantial performance” laid down in Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414 , ( 44 N. W. Rep.