Milliken v. Mannheimer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by garnishees, Eobert Mannheimer, Emil Mannheimer, Jacob Mannheimer, and Benjamin L. Goodkind, from a judgment of the District Court of Eamsey county, Otis, J., entered against them September 17, 1891, for $1,061.48. These garnishees were on May 1, 1890, partners doing business at St. Paul under the firm name of Mannheimer Bros.
Read the full summary
Appeal by garnishees, Eobert Mannheimer, Emil Mannheimer, Jacob Mannheimer, and Benjamin L. Goodkind, from a judgment of the District Court of Eamsey county, Otis, J., entered against them September 17, 1891, for $1,061.48. These garnishees were on May 1, 1890, partners doing business at St. Paul under the firm name of Mannheimer Bros. On that day the plaintiffs, Seth M. Milliken et al., brought an action in the District Court of Eamsey county against the defendants, Sigmond Eecheimer et al., to recover a large Amount. On that day plaintiffs filed affidavit that the garnishees were indebted…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The first error assigned is that the court erred in ordering judgment against the garnishees upon their disclosure.
Upon full disclosure, the garnishees clearly admitted an indebtedness to the defendants in the action to the amount for which judgment was ordered at the time of the service of the garnishee summons. Undoubtedly, it must clearly and affirmatively appear by the disclosure that such indebtedness existed; but a denial of indebtedness is unavailing where the facts stated clearly establish it, since such denial may be based on an erroneous construction of the facts or the effect of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Hustad v. ReedMontana Supreme Court · 1958
- Security State Bank v. BrechtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Carlson v. StaffordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Johnson v. Dutch Mill Dairy, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Douglas State Bank v. MeyersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.