Furst v. W. B. & W. G. Jordan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $9,500 for malicious attachment. The answer was a general denial. The case wa.% tried before Dickinson, J., who granted defendants5 motion for a directed verdict. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
The defendant sued out a writ of attachment against Alfred L. Shol and Martin Pahl, copartners as Shol & Pahl, and caused a levy to be made thereunder on July 3, 1917. Thereafter Messrs. Shol and Pahl, on their voluntary petition, were adjudged bankrupts, and, on August 3, 1917, plaintiff was appointed as trustee of their property and assets. Alleging that the attachment was wrongful and malicious, plaintiff as trustee brought this action for damages. At the trial the court directed a verdict for defendants on the ground that plaintiff conceded that no steps had ever been taken to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- In re RichardsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1899
- Brand v. HinchmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Stone-Ordean-Wells Co. v. MarkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- Cook v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1912
- Martin v. FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Clarke & Simmons, Inc. v. RuleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921