Bennett v. Schuster
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court of Olmsted county, as the administrator of E. Cassidy, deceased, to< recover the possession or value of certain personal property in the hands of the defendants, Henry Schuster, Mary E.. Peck and E. A. Jones.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court of Olmsted county, as the administrator of E. Cassidy, deceased, to< recover the possession or value of certain personal property in the hands of the defendants, Henry Schuster, Mary E.. Peck and E. A. Jones. The action was referred to and tried by Lloyd Barber, Esq., who, under objection and exception, admitted in evidence, upon the trial, the affidavit made by the plaintiff in order to obtain' delivery of the property; the requisition upon the-sheriff ; and the return of said sheriff certifying that he took the said property into his…
1Opinion of the CourtBeery, J.
Section 15, c. 52, Gen. St., provides that when there is a deficiency of assets in his hands an administrator may, for the benefit of the creditors of the deceased, “sue and recover for all goods, chattels, rights or credits” which may have been conveyed by the deceased in his life-time, with intent to defraud his creditors,” etc. The particular action thus authorized has, by the terms of the section, reference to a case in which, in consequence of the fraudulent conveyance, there is a deficiency of assets in the hands of the administrator. Where, notwithstanding the fraudulent conveyance,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Freeman v. McAninchTexas Supreme Court · 1894
- Tolbert v. HortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Kemp v. HolzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921