Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Hursey
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by pláintiff from an order of the district court for Washington county, Williston, J., dissolving an attachment as to defendant Wilmot A. Hursey. Action against Arthur W. Hursey, Achsa W..
Read the full summary
Appeal by pláintiff from an order of the district court for Washington county, Williston, J., dissolving an attachment as to defendant Wilmot A. Hursey. Action against Arthur W. Hursey, Achsa W.. Hursey, and Wilmpt A. Hursey, as copartners, for goods sold and delivered to A. W. Hursey & Co. The affidavits in support of the motion denied that Wilmot A. Hursey had ever been a partner in the firm, and denied any knowledge of the alleged fraudulent intent, or of the insolvency, of A. W. Hursey & Co.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order dissolving an attachment as to the defendant Wilmot A. Hursey on his motion. The ground of the attachment is that the plaintiff’s debt was fraudulently contracted in this: that the defendants purchased of the plaintiff the goods for the price of which the action is brought, -with the preconceived intention of not paying for them, and when they were insolvent. The motion was made and opposed on affidavits which are conflicting. The decision of the court below is conclusive unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence opposed to that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- First National Bank v. RandallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- First State Bank v. SchatzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- First National Bank v. BuchanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899