State ex rel. Peterson v. District Court
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 1938, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Truck South, Inc. v. Patel (S.C. Ct. App. 1998)
- McMullen v. McMullen (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)
- State Ex Rel. Smith v. District Court (Minn. 1938)
- State Ex Rel. Nyquist v. District Court of Swift County (Minn. 1925)
- Winegar v. Martin (Minn. 1921)
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
Plaintiff contracted to sell and defendant contracted to buy a half section of land located in Pine county. Defendant defaulted in his payments and plaintiff brought this action in Pine county for specific performance of the contract and asked to have defendant’s interest in the land sold to pay the amount found due under the contract. Defendant is a resident of Lyon county and duly made demand that the place of trial be changed to Lyon county. The district court of Pine county having refused to strike the case from the calendar of that county and transfer it to Lyon county, defendant applied to this court for a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the district court to transfer the case to Lyon county.
In State v. District Court of Pennington County, 138 Minn. 336, 164 N. W. 1014, it was hela that an action for the specific performance of an executory contract for the sale of real estate was not wholly local and was properly triable in the county in which the defendant resided. It is true that in that case the action was brought by the vendee while in this case it is brought by the vendor, but we see no good reason why the same rule as to place of trial should not apply in both cases, and hold that this case is controlled by that decision. Let a peremptory writ issue.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.