Burke v. Ray
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1920, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kociemba v. Kociemba (Minn. 1920)
- Berndt v. Berndt (Minn. 1914)
- Koch v. Fischer (Minn. 1913)
- Cappis v. Wiedemann (Minn. 1902)
- Coffin v. Bradbury (Idaho 1894)
- Prairie School Township v. Haseleu (N.D. 1893)
- Wunderlich v. National Surety Corp. (D. Minn. 1938)
- Ferrier v. McCabe (Minn. 1915)
- Twohy Mercantile Co. v. Estate of McDonald (Wis. 1900)
- Conant v. Estate of Kimball (Wis. 1897)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Specific performance of an oral agreement to convey lands will not be enforced unless the contract is clearly proved, both as to the fact of making it and as to its terms. The statement of the court below, in its findings of fact, that it is unable to determine from the evidence what the terms of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant were, is not only justified by the evidence, but it is a finding, in effect, that the allegations of the complaint as to the terms of the agreement are unproved; in other words, that those allegations are untrue. It would have been in better form had the findings distinctly stated that those allegations are untrue, but such is its effect. Of course specific performance could not be decreed on such a finding.
It was proper to admit oral evidence contradicting the written receipt. The receipt, being only an admission, and therefore evidence of a fact, is no higher evidence of the fact than the testimony of a witness. It is only when, and so far as, the receipt includes a contract, that it cannot be explained or contradicted by parol.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.