Short v. Van Dyke

Decision Date27 June 1892
Citation52 N.W. 643,50 Minn. 286
PartiesSHORT ET AL. v VAN DYKE ET AL.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. A certain contract construed, and held to be only a contract to convey real estate, and not one creating or declaring a trust.

2. Held, also, that upon a contract to convey the necessity for taking an account to ascertain how much the vendee must pay for a conveyance does not prevent the running of the statute of limitations.

3. Also, that in such contract the reservation of a lien in favor of the vendor upon the interest of the vendee to secure other claims than for the purchase price does not enlarge the time for commencing an action for specific performance.

Appeal from district court, Pine county; WILLISTON, Judge.

Action by Andrew J. Short and others against W. J. Van Dyke and others on a contract to convey land. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant Van Dyke appeals. Reversed.

Little & Nunn and M. B. Koon, for appellant.

Searles & Gail, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The decision of this case will necessarily depend on the interpretation of the contract on which the action is brought. If it is merely a contract to convey, the cause of action was undoubtedly barred by the statute of limitations before the action was brought. The right to bring an action for specific performance-and, if the contract is only one for conveyance, this is such an action-accrued and the action might have been brought as soon as, by the terms of the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to offer performance on his part, and demand a conveyance in this case, certainly at the end of the four years. That the taking an account might be necessary to determine how much plaintiff must pay would not stand in the way of bringing the action, though it might excuse a previous tender, for it would be proper to take the account and determine the amount to be paid in the action to enforce specific performance. Nor could it extend or affect the time for bringing an action upon it as a contract to convey that the vendor stipulated for a lien something in the nature of a mortgage to secure other claims than for the purchase price upon the vendee's interest. Such lien or mortgage could not exist beyond the life of the vendee's interest. So that if-what we do not think is so, but as respondent claims-a lien was reserved on the vendee's interest, it would make no difference with the time within which the vendee must bring an action for specific performance. On the other hand, if the action is against the defendant as trustee...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & SSMR Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 4 Noviembre 1938
    ... ... When the dam was constructed in 1924 a short distance upstream from the bridge it developed that the tail-races of the dam diverted the current of the river in such a way as to make it necessary ... Short v. Van Dyke, 50 Minn. 286, 52 N.W. 643. The plaintiff, therefore, contends that this action has long since been barred by Section 9191, Mason's Minnesota ... ...
  • United California Bank v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1983
    ... ...         In many real estate developments, financing is accomplished in two steps--a short-term construction loan and a long-term permanent loan. In this case, however, financing became a three-step process because HRP, as owner-developer, ...         In Short v. Van Dyke, 50 Minn. 286, 52 N.W. 643 (1892), the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the argument that a list of land endorsed on the contract was thereby ... ...
  • Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Ovonyx, Inc. (In re Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 1 Octubre 2020
    ... ... 41, 4546, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ). The Court explained, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim ... Cf. Whittlesey v. Herbrand Co. , 217 Mich. 625, 187 N.W. 279, 280 (1922) (quoting Short v. Van Dyke , 50 Minn. 286, 52 N.W. 643 (1892) ). 141 That Royalty Right is unaffected by ECD's later rejection of the 1998 Contract, especially given that ECD ... ...
  • King Cattle Co. v. Joseph
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 28 Marzo 1924
    ... ... negotiability because the deed is expressly made part of ... them. It is as though its contents were repeated in them ... Short v. Van Dyke, 50 Minn. 286, 289, 52 N.W. 643 ... Negotiable paper enters the channels of commerce. It is a ... medium of exchange in the business ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT