Legal Opinion

In re Western Implement Co.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided January 6, 1909PublishedCited by 9 opinions

On Petition to Review an Order of the Referee.

1Opinion of the Court

PURDY, District Judge.

This is a petition to review an order of the referee in bankruptcy in the above-entitled matter in which he held that the state of Minnesota was not entitled to priority as to its claim against the estate of the Western Implement Company. The referee made his order refusing priority to the claim of the state upon an agreed statement of facts which, so far as the same are material to a review of the referee’s order, are as follows:

The Western Implement Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Arizona, was adjudicated a bankrupt in the above-entitled…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Derby v. Worcester CountyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1900
  2. State v. GrottkauWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
  3. In re StoeverDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1904
  4. State v. BellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  5. Cole v. AuneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Ohio v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Davis v. CoyleCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  3. Rice v. State Ex Rel. ShortSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  4. Buena Vista County v. Marathon Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
  5. Davis v. PringleCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1924

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API