Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reynolds v. Curtiss, 55 N.W. 543.

17 citing documents.

Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Carlson-Grefe Construction, Inc. v. Rosemount Condominium Group Partnership 474 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388, 395 , quoted in Phelps, 279 Minn, at 114, d at 252.
Jesco, Inc. v. Home Life Insurance Co. 357 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , Reuben E. Johnson Co. v. Phelps, 279 Minn. 107
Lampert Yards, Inc. v. Thompson-Wetterling Construction & Realty, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1974
The statute is intended to provide fair notice to mortgagees of improvements “on the ground.” Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388
Dunham Associates, Inc. v. Group Investments, Inc. 223 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1974
In the case of Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , *117 (1893), in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Mitchell, the theory that a bona fide mortgagee should have precedence over a lien claimant where there was no visible improvement on the ground was first stated and may well have led to the adoption of the revision of the statute which now so provides.
M. E. Kraft Excavating & Grading Co. v. Barac Construction Co. 156 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 1968
The statement of Mr. Justice Mitchell of this court with respect to architect’s services contained in Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388, 395 , , is appropriate with respect both to the architect’s services and the survey herein: “* * * [I]t would be very unjust if the land could be afterwards swallowed up by mechanics’ liens for work which had not been commenced on the ground, and of which consequently one who might buy the property or take a mortgage u
Reuben E. Johnson Co. v. Phelps 156 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1968
With respect to both architectural services and surveys, we think the following statement of Mr. Justice Mitchell, writing for the court in the case of Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388, 395 , , is appropriate: “* * * [I]t would be very unjust if the land could be afterwards swallowed up by mechanics’ liens for work which had not been commenced on the ground, and of which consequently one who might buy the property or take a mortgage upon it had no notice or means of knowledge when he took his de
First National Bank v. Schunk 276 N.W. 290 Minn. 1937
Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386 , , 32 A. S. R. 566; Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , ; Elliott v. Tainter, 88 Minn. 377 , ; 41 C. J. 582.
Anderson v. Peterson State Bank 254 N.W. 459 Minn. 1934
(2 ed. & Supp.) § 9038; 60 C. J. § 28, pp. 719, 720; Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388, 397 , .
Kingery v. Kingery 241 N.W. 583 Minn. 1932
In Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , , and Heisler v. C. Aultman & Co. 56 Minn. 454 , , 45 A. S. R. 486, it was held that subrogation applies only where the payment operates as a purchase or equitable assignment, and not as an extinguishment of the lien paid, and such is the intention of the parties.
Oman v. Balfany 201 N.W. 916 Minn. 1925
Probstfield v. Czizek, 37 Minn. 420 , ; Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , ; Westberg v. Pettiford, 148 Minn. 386 , ; Frey v. Vanderhoof, 15 Wis.
Erickson v. Ireland 158 N.W. 918 Minn. 1916
Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , ; City of Ortonville v. Geer, 93 Minn. 501 , , 106 Am.
Lamoreaux v. Andersch 150 N.W. 908 Minn. 1915
Knight v. Norris, 13 Minn. 438 (473) ; Gardner v. Leck, 52 Minn. 522 , ; Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , ; Wanganstein v. Jones, 61 Minn. 262 , l7.
Thompson-McDonald Lumber Co. v. Morawetz 149 N.W. 300 Minn. 1914
The case of Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , , presented a controversy between a lien claimant and a mortgagee, and involved the question whether the *280 lien there before tbe court was prior to a mortgage upon tbe premises, wbicb was executed and recorded before tbe improvements thereon were commenced.
City of Ortonville v. Geer 101 N.W. 963 Minn. 1904
The same principle in this respect has been subsequently recognized in the cases of Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , , and Miller v. Stoddard, 50 Minn. 272 , , but it is claimed for the appellant that chapter 101, p. 224, Laws 1895, which reads as follows: Such liens shall attach at the time of the furnishing of the first item of such labor, skill, material or machinery, and shall be preferred and be prior to any mortga
Heisler v. C. Aultman & Co. 57 N.W. 1053 Minn. 1894
The doctrine of subrogation has recently been considered by this court in two cases: Emmert v. Thompson, 49 Minn. 386 , ( ,) and Wentworth v. Tubbs, 53 Minn. 388 , ( .)
Wentworth v. Tubbs 55 N.W. 543 Minn. 1893