Minnesota Supreme Court, 1915

Twitchell v. Cummings

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 11, 1915 · Taylor

128 Minn. 391; 151 N.W. 139; 1915 Minn. LEXIS 950 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Selover, Schultz & Selover, for appellant., A. E. Ilelrnide, for respondent.

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 1935, 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

2 later published cases cite this decision.

School District No. 1 v. Lindhe (Minn. 1935)
Borough of Belle Plaine v. Northern Power Co. (Minn. 1919)

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

Taylor, C.

Plaintiff appealed from an order dissolving a temporary injunction, and the sole question for decision is whether she established such a clear right to the injunction that the trial court exceeded its judicial discretion in vacating it.

Plaintiff leased five lots in the city of Minneapolis to defendant for the purpose of removing sand and gravel therefrom, in consideration of specified payments to be made by defendant. She brought this action to cancel the leases and to enjoin defendant from removing any more sand or gravel from the lots on the ground that he had defaulted in his payments, that he had failed to remove waste material as required by the contract, and that he was insolvent. A temporary injunction was granted without prejudice to the right *392to move to vacate it. Soon thereafter, upon the motion of defendant based upon his answer and certain supporting affidavits, the court made the order from which the appeal is taken. The facts asserted by plaintiff are denied by defendant, and the case falls within the well-established rule that this court will not interfere with the action of the trial court in granting or refusing a temporary injunction, where the evidence as to the facts is conflicting and no irreparable injury impends. A statement of the rule and a reference to many cases applying it will be found in Minneapolis Gaslight Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 123 Minn. 231, 143 N. W. 728.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.