Paget v. Barton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Paget v. Barton

60 N.W. 342, 58 Minn. 510, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 447

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 19, 1894

DocketNo. 8941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 N.W. 342 (Paget v. Barton) 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

Paget v. Barton, 60 N.W. 342, 58 Minn. 510, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 447 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Buck, J.

This is an action brought upon a contract for the sale of real estate, — the plaintiff, who was the owner of the land, claiming that there was a default in the payment of the sum of $200 purchase money; asked that the court ascertain the amount due and unpaid, and that an early day be fixed when the amount should be paid, and that in default of payment the contract be declared null .and void and forfeited, and that plaintiff have restitution of the premises. The defendants interposed a demurrer to the complaint on the •ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court below overruled the demurrer, and defendants appealed. There is no merit in the appeal. The complaint is clearly sufficient, and the order of the court below overruling the demurrer is affirmed.

(Opinion published 60 N. W. 342.)

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

Buck, J.

This is an action brought upon a contract for the sale of real estate, — the plaintiff, who was the owner of the land, claiming that there was a default in the payment of the sum of $200 purchase money; asked that the court ascertain the amount due and unpaid, and that an early day be fixed when the amount should be paid, and that in default of payment the contract be declared null .and void and forfeited, and that plaintiff have restitution of the premises. The defendants interposed a demurrer to the complaint on the •ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court below overruled the demurrer, and defendants appealed. There is no merit in the appeal. The complaint is clearly sufficient, and the order of the court below overruling the demurrer is affirmed.

(Opinion published 60 N. W. 342.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.W. 342, 58 Minn. 510, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paget-v-barton-minn-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack