Lord v. Meachem
Supreme Court of Minnesota
On January 22, 1884, one Smith brought suit against defendant Meachem, in the municipal court of Minneapolis, and summoned the Hennepin County Savings Bank as garnishee.
Read the full summary
On January 22, 1884, one Smith brought suit against defendant Meachem, in the municipal court of Minneapolis, and summoned the Hennepin County Savings Bank as garnishee. On the next day, Meachem executed to Joseph D. Darling an assignment purporting to be made under the insolvent law of 1881. (Laws 1881, c. 148.) The assignee accepted the trust, took possession of the assigned property, and filed his bond approved by a judge of the district court for Hennepin county, where the assignor resided and the assignment was filed. Afterwards, and on January 26,1884, this suit was brought against…
1Opinion of the Court
Berry, J.1
Upon the uncontroverted statements of the assignee’s petition, and upon its own face, the first assignment involved in this case must be taken to be valid, in accordance with the views expressed by this court at this term. In re Mann, ante, p. 60. Under our statute, the assignee is not, by virtue of an assignment, garnishable in a suit against the assignor, unless, at the date of service of the garnishee summons, he has in his hands or under his control property, money, or effects belonging to the assignor, or owes the assignor some indebtedness absolutely, and without depending on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Donohue v. LaddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by5 opinions
- McClure v. CampbellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. AdamsWashington Supreme Court · 1892
- Ed Hockaday & Co. v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Second National Bank v. SchranckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. LovejoySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885