Vercellini v. U. S. I. Realty Co.
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 2011, 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
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Logan v. Panuska (Minn. 1980)
- Mauer v. Kircher (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)
- Adams v. Little Missouri Minerals Association (N.D. 1966)
- Stern v. National City Co. (D. Minn. 1938)
- Stuckey v. ONLINE RESOURCES CORP. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2011)
- State v. Martinez-Mendoza (Minn. 2011)
- McGraw v. Liberty Airlines, Inc. (In re Bell & Beckwith) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio 1988)
- Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- McCauley v. Michael (Minn. 1977)
- Bailey v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. (D. Minn. 1976)
- In re Estate of Peterson (Minn. 1950)
- Peterson v. Hovland (Minn. 1950)
- Willig v. Gold (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)
- Donaldson v. Chase Securities Corp. (Minn. 1943)
- City Co. of New York, Inc. v. Stern (8th Cir. 1940)
- Shepard v. City Co. of New York (D. Minn. 1938)
- Zochrison v. Redemption Gold Corp. (Minn. 1937)
- Vogel v. Chase Securities Corp. (D. Minn. 1936)
- Edson v. O'Connell (Minn. 1934)
- Ruehmann v. Consumers Ice Fuel Co. Inc. (Minn. 1934)
- Drees v. Minnesota Petroleum Co. (Minn. 1933)
- Kneeland v. Emerton (Mass. 1932)
- Marin v. Olson (Minn. 1930)
- Wilson v. Guaranteed Securities Co. (Utah 1928)
- In re Builders' Finance Ass'n (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1928)
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
The court was of the opinion that the case was controlled by the rule that when a statute imposes a penalty, not for the protection of the revenue but for the protection of citizens against fraud or imposition, it amounts to a prohibition of the act penalized, and a contract in violation of the statute is illegal. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 1873; 13 C. J. p. 421; 6 R. C. L. p. 702. Appellant’s counsel frankly admits that he thinks the court was right, but adds that the realty company is now in the hands of a receiver, that there are hundreds of outstanding contracts identical in character with this one, upon which purchasers have paid and are yet to pay large
Respondent was not a party to the violation of the statute. He is not in pari delicto with appellant. Blue Sky laws are intended to protect one class of individuals from the imposition of another class. The only guilty party is the seller of a security sold in violation of the statute. We hold that the trial court correctly ruled that respondent is entitled to recover the money he paid. 3 Williston, Contr. §§ 1788, 1789; 6 R. C. L. p. 833; 13 C. J. p. 498.
Part of the money paid was termed a contract fee. It is faintly urged that the fee was paid for the privilege of entering into the contract, and hence was not included in the consideration for the alleged sale of the land. We perceive no good reason for separating the payments to allow appellant to retain any of the money it received. It was all received under and pursuant to the provisions of the illegal contract.
It is contended that there can be no recovery because respondent has not made or offered to make restitution. But he received nothing of value. All he got was an investment contract issued and sold in violation of a penal statute. It is suggested that the contract may have been recorded and clouds appellant’s title to the land described therein, but there is nothing in the record
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.