Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railroad, 46 N.W. 342.

48 citing documents.

Guckeen Farmers Elevator Co. v. Cargill, Inc. 130 N.W.2d 69 Minn. 1964
Guckeen Farmers Elevator Co. v. Cargill, Inc. 130 N.W.2d 69 Minn. 1964
Co. 44 Minn. 153 , ; National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263; J. I. Case Threshing Machine *133 Co. v. Bargabos, 143 Minn. 8 , ; Gustafson v. Equitable Loan Assn. 186 Minn. 236 , ; Moberg v. Commercial Credit Corp. 230 Minn. 469 , 42 N. W. (2d) 54 ; DeVries v. Sig Ellingson & Co. (D. Minn.) 100 F. Supp. 781 .
Anderson v. Commissioner of Taxation 93 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1958
Anderson v. Commissioner of Taxation 93 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 1958
See, State v. Stickney, 213 Minn. 89 , 5 N. W. (2d) 351 ; National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263.
Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn. 293 N.W. 619 Minn. 1940
Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn. 293 N.W. 619 Minn. 1940
We held that the state statute was intended to have the same meaning as the federal act and followed the federal rule, pointing out that it would be anomalous to have the state and federal courts applying different rules to the same facts under identical provisions of law, and quoted Mr. Justice Mitchell in National Bank of Commerce v. C. B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224, 235 , 46 N. W. *277 342, 346, 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 A. S. R. 566, speaking on a question of commercial law where no statute was i
Gustafson v. Equitable Loan Assn. 243 N.W. 106 Minn. 1932
Gustafson v. Equitable Loan Assn. 243 N.W. 106 Minn. 1932
if it is dishonored there is no accord and satisfaction of the debt * * Where goods are sold for cash on delivery, and payment is made by the purchaser by check on his banker, such payment is only conditional, and the delivery of the goods also only conditional; and if the check on due presentation is dishonored, the vendor may retake the goods.” National Bank of Commerce v. C. B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224, 229 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 A. S. R. 566; J. I. Case T. M. Co. v. Bargabos, 143 Minn. 8
Commercial Investment Trust v. Lundgren-Wittensten Co. 216 N.W. 531 Minn. 1927
Commercial Investment Trust v. Lundgren-Wittensten Co. 216 N.W. 531 Minn. 1927
Bank of Commerce v. C. B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 A. S. R. 566; J. I. Case Th.
Hoven v. Leedham 189 N.W. 601 Minn. 1922
Hoven v. Leedham 189 N.W. 601 Minn. 1922
In support of this he cites National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , L. R. A. 263, 26 Am.
Manchester Savings Bank v. Lynch 186 N.W. 794 Minn. 1922
Manchester Savings Bank v. Lynch 186 N.W. 794 Minn. 1922
National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am.
Campbell v. Motion Picture Machine Operators' Union 186 N.W. 781 Minn. 1922
Campbell v. Motion Picture Machine Operators' Union 186 N.W. 781 Minn. 1922
The reasons guiding the judicial mind in that direction are well and forcibly expressed by the late Justice Mitchell in National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am.
Banik v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 179 N.W. 899 Minn. 1920
Banik v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 179 N.W. 899 Minn. 1920
Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 -232, , 9 L.R.A.
Dalrymple v. Randall, Gee & Mitchell Co. 174 N.W. 520 Minn. 1919
Dalrymple v. Randall, Gee & Mitchell Co. 174 N.W. 520 Minn. 1919
Co. 44 Minn. 153 , ; National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am.
J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Bargabos 172 N.W. 882 Minn. 1919
J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Bargabos 172 N.W. 882 Minn. 1919
Laws 1917, pp. 782, 783, 786, c. 465, §§ 52, 53, 54, 61; National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L.R.A.
Lowitz v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 161 N.W. 411 Minn. 1917
Lowitz v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 161 N.W. 411 Minn. 1917
National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am.
Palm Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Bjornstad 161 N.W. 215 Minn. 1917
Palm Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Bjornstad 161 N.W. 215 Minn. 1917
336; National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L.R.A.
Penas v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 127 N.W. 926 Minn. 1910
Penas v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 127 N.W. 926 Minn. 1910
Ct. 570, 32 L. ed. 991; and see National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L.R.A.
Ammon v. Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. 127 N.W. 448 Minn. 1910
Ammon v. Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. 127 N.W. 448 Minn. 1910
In National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am.
First National Bank v. McConnell 114 N.W. 1129 Minn. 1908
First National Bank v. McConnell 114 N.W. 1129 Minn. 1908
528; National v. Chicago, 44 Minn. 224 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am.
Barnum Grain Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. 112 N.W. 1030 Minn. 1907
Barnum Grain Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. 112 N.W. 1030 Minn. 1907
Co., 44 Minn. 224, 236 , , 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am.
Swedish-American National Bank v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. 105 N.W. 69 Minn. 1905
Swedish-American National Bank v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. 105 N.W. 69 Minn. 1905
It was held in the case of National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 236 , , in accordance with the weight of judicial opinion, that a bill of lading issued by the shipping agent of a carrier without receiving the goods named in it does not estop the carrier from showing that no goods were in fact received for transportation as against an innocent consignee or indors
Goodall v. Norton 92 N.W. 445 Minn. 1902
Goodall v. Norton 92 N.W. 445 Minn. 1902
Good v. Singleton, 39 Minn. 340 , ; National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , .
Merz v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 90 N.W. 7 Minn. 1902
Merz v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 90 N.W. 7 Minn. 1902
This is well settled in this jurisdiction (National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , ), as it is elsewhere.
Carter, Rice & Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co. 76 N.W. 55 Minn. 1898
Carter, Rice & Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co. 76 N.W. 55 Minn. 1898
Fishback v. Van Dusen, 33 Minn. 111 , ; National Bank v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , .
Ratzer v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co. 66 N.W. 988 Minn. 1896
Ratzer v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co. 66 N.W. 988 Minn. 1896
In the case of National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , , it was held that the railroad company was not liable to the pledgee of the bill of lading.
Freeman v. Kraemer 65 N.W. 455 Minn. 1895
Freeman v. Kraemer 65 N.W. 455 Minn. 1895
National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224 , .
Security Bank of Minnesota v. Minneapolis Cold Storage Co. 56 N.W. 582 Minn. 1893
Security Bank of Minnesota v. Minneapolis Cold Storage Co. 56 N.W. 582 Minn. 1893
Co., 44 Minn. 224 -236, ( 46 N. W. Rep.