DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite C. Aultman & Co. v. Falkum, 50 N.W. 471.

19 citing documents.

  • MacIoch v. Wagner 134 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1965
  • State v. H. J. Minar Co. 81 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1957
    Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; 2 Williston, Sales (Rev. ed.) § 448.
  • B. A. Griffin Co. v. Northwestern Fish & Seafood Co. 33 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1948
    Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. 111 , ; Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; Day v. Gravel, 72 Minn. 159 , .” In Sargent v. Bryan, 160 Minn. 200, 203 , , the rule is again stated: “Section 19, Uniform Sales Act, provides that unless a different intention appears, the property in the goods passes to the buyer *504 when an unconditional contract is made for the sale of
  • In Re Estate of Peterson 281 N.W. 877 Minn. 1938
    Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; Becher-Barrett-Lockerby Co. v. Hilbert, 197 Minn. 541 , 267 N.W.
  • Downey v. Peterson 281 N.W. 877 Minn. 1938
    Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; Becher-Barrett-Lockerby Co. v. Hilbert, 197 Minn. 541 , ; 2 Mason Minn. St.
  • Louis F. Dow Co. v. Bittner 244 N.W. 556 Minn. 1932
  • Watson v. Goldstein 222 N.W. 509 Minn. 1928
    Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elev.
  • Sargent v. Bryan 199 N.W. 737 Minn. 1924
  • Lampert Lumber Co. v. Thanning 197 N.W. 269 Minn. 1924
    Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; 35 Cyc.
  • Jock v. O'Malley 165 N.W. 233 Minn. 1917
    Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co. 47 Minn. 422, Fredette v. Thomas, 57 Minn. 190 , ; E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Ele.
  • Wilkes v. Holmes 150 N.W. 1098 Minn. 1915
    Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co. 47 Minn. 422 , .
  • E. L. Welch Co. v. Lahart Elevator Co. 142 N.W. 828 Minn. 1913
    Fishback v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 33 Minn. 111 , ; Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co. 47 Minn. 422 , ; Day v. Gravel, 72 Minn. 159 , .
  • Ammon v. Illinois Central Railroad 139 N.W. 819 Minn. 1913
    Rail *441 v. Little Falls Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 422 , .
  • Bandler v. Bradley 124 N.W. 644 Minn. 1910
  • Bandler v. Bradley 124 N.W. 644 Minn. 1910
    C. Aultman & Co. v. Faulkum, 47 Minn. 414 , .
  • Somers v. Sturre 118 N.W. 682 Minn. 1908
    The contention of the plaintiff is to the effect that this was an immaterial issue, and no evidence should have been received tending to ’prove it, for the reason that the contract for-the sale and purchase of the stock was an executed one; hence the case is ruled by Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 422 , .
  • State v. Meehan 100 N.W. 6 Minn. 1904
    The test applicable to contracts where payment of the purchase price and delivery are -deferred is stated in Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 422 , , as follows: “The rule is that when the chattels are clearly designated and appropriated to the contract, are ready for immediate delivery, and the terms of sale, including the price, are explicitly given, there is an executed contract, and the title to the property, as between the parties, passes to the purchaser, e
  • McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Balfany 81 N.W. 10 Minn. 1899
    See also Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 422 , .
  • Restad v. Engemoen 67 N.W. 1146 Minn. 1896
    But, if anything remains to be done on the part of the seller, as between him and the buyer, such as weighing, measuring, or counting out of a common parcel, before the goods purchased are to be delivered, until that is ¿one the right of property has not attached in the buyer.” See, also, Rail v. Little Falls Lumber Co., 47 Minn. 422 , .