Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1898-12-30
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1967
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
(1)
Our opinion is that the demurrer must be sustained because the bill does not show the terms upon which' the mortgages were to be given, either as to length of time they were to run or as to whether they were to carry interest, and, if so, at what rate.
Williams
v. Stewart, 25 Minn. 516;
Schmelling
v. Kriesel, 45 Wis. 325.
¶3
The bill sets out a refusal of the respondent to carry out the contract as an excuse for not tendering the deed within the thirty days stipulated in the memorandum. We think that such refusal was a sufficient excuse.
Bicknell
v.
Waterman, 5
R. I. 43.
¶4
Whether allegations, to be proved by parol, showing the terms of the mortgage, could be sustained, we do not decide.
