Hayden v. Dwyer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hayden v. Dwyer

50 N.W. 200, 47 Minn. 246, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 457

DecidedOctober 21, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 50 N.W. 200 (Hayden v. Dwyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayden v. Dwyer, 50 N.W. 200, 47 Minn. 246, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 457 (Mich. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

There is in this case nothing in any assignment of error, based on exceptions taken, that requires special mention. As soon as plaintiff, under the agreement with Steele, left her note in the office of Payne, she had complied with the terms of the con[247]*247tract of sale of the property to her, the title passed to her, and she was entitled to the bill of sale, which after that time was in the hands-of Payne as her agent. If Dwyer after that took a transfer from Steele, with notice that plaintiff had purchased the property, — as from the evidence the jury might have found, and as we must presume they did find, — then he could not be a bona fide purchaser, and it was immaterial that the possession of the property remained in the vendor.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gilfillan, C. J.

There is in this case nothing in any assignment of error, based on exceptions taken, that requires special mention. As soon as plaintiff, under the agreement with Steele, left her note in the office of Payne, she had complied with the terms of the con[247]*247tract of sale of the property to her, the title passed to her, and she was entitled to the bill of sale, which after that time was in the hands-of Payne as her agent. If Dwyer after that took a transfer from Steele, with notice that plaintiff had purchased the property, — as from the evidence the jury might have found, and as we must presume they did find, — then he could not be a bona fide purchaser, and it was immaterial that the possession of the property remained in the vendor.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.W. 200, 47 Minn. 246, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-dwyer-minn-1891.