Winslow v. Minnesota & Pacific Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EROM AN ORDER OE THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY CODNTY, DENYING THE APPLICATION OE WM. L. BANNING, EOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS A DEPENDANT IN THE ACTION. Points and authorities of Appellant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM AN ORDER OE THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY CODNTY, DENYING THE APPLICATION OE WM. L. BANNING, EOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS A DEPENDANT IN THE ACTION. Points and authorities of Appellant. The court erred in denying the application of William L. Banning to be made a party defendant in this action : First- — Because it appeared that said Banning held one of the first mortgage bonds secured by said trust deeds referred to in the complaint, and the Plaintiff sought to set aside the supplemental trust deed and enjoin its execution. Second, — -Because it appears that Banning’s interest to defend…
1Opinion of the CourtAtwater, J.
By the Court. James M. Winslow, the Plaintiff above named, commenced an action in the District Court for the Second Judicial District, for the purpose of setting aside a certain supplemental trust deed made by the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company, to certain other Defendants named in the action, and for the purpose of restraining the Governor of the State from selling the road and franchises of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company, previous to the execution of the trust deed, which is sought to be set aside, had issued nine hundred bonds of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Meach v. ChappellNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kerrison v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- City of Austin v. CahillTexas Supreme Court · 1905
- Atlantic Trust Co. v. DanaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
- Vetterlein v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Robertson v. Van CleaveIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.