Livingstone v. Brown
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The defendant in this action was sheriff of Olmsted county, and as such sheriff, by virtue of a writ of attachment issued out of the district court for that county against the property of one Daniel W. Haynes, at the suit of C. H. Kellogg, T. B. Kellogg and P. Johnson, levied upon certain personal property. The plaintif claiming to have purchased the property levied upon from Haynes, and to be the owner thereof, brought this action in said court to recover back the same.
Read the full summary
The defendant in this action was sheriff of Olmsted county, and as such sheriff, by virtue of a writ of attachment issued out of the district court for that county against the property of one Daniel W. Haynes, at the suit of C. H. Kellogg, T. B. Kellogg and P. Johnson, levied upon certain personal property. The plaintif claiming to have purchased the property levied upon from Haynes, and to be the owner thereof, brought this action in said court to recover back the same. The case comes to this court by an appeal taken by the defendant from an order denying his motion for a new trial, after…
1Opinion of the Court
*310By the Court.
Ripley, Ch. J.
The Gen. Stat. ch. 41, sec. 15, provide that: “ Every sale made by a vendor of goods and chattels in his possession or under his control, * * unless the same is accompanied by an immediate delivery, and followed by an actual and continued chang’e of possession of the thing’s sold, * * shall be presumed to be fraudulent and void, as against the creditors of the vendor, * * * unless those claiming under such sale, * * make it appear that the same was made in good faith, and without any intent to hinder, delay or defraud such creditors.”
The defendant contends, that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barry v. McGradeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Dodge v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864