Minnesota Supreme Court, 1926

Bowers v. Norton

Bowers v. Norton
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 19, 1926 · PER CURIAM.
210 N.W. 871; 169 Minn. 198; 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1421 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

George A. Norton and N.J. Nelson , for appellants. H.J. Edison , for respondents.

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 1960, 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

Bowers v. Norton

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

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

Per Curiam.

Action by vendors against vendees for specific performance of a contract to convey land. After findings and an order for judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial.

The case has proceeded and judgment has been ordered for plaintiffs under the rule of Abbott v. Moldestad, 74 Minn. 293, 77 N. W. 227, 73 Am. St. 348, and Freeman v. Paulson, 107 Minn. 64, 119 N. W. 651, 131 Am. St. 438. Those cases are now controlled by Noyes v. Brown, 142 Minn. 211, 171 N. W. 803. See also Paynesville L. Co. v. Grabow, 160 Minn. 414, 200 N. W. 481.

The main argument for defendants is that the statute, G. S. 1923, Í; 9576, providing for the cancelation by notice of an executory contract for the conveyance of land, provides the exclusive remedy for the vendor. There is nothing in that point and it was decided otherwise in State Bank v. Sylte, 162 Minn. 72, 202 N. W. 70.

The other points made for defendants are also disposed of adversely to defendants by the cases first above cited.

Order affirmed.

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