Mann v. Flower
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Simons, J., presiding, refusing to dissolve an injunction.
1Opinion of the CourtGtlfillan, C. J.
The position of the case seems to be this: Taylor, the owner of a-stock of goods, executed a mortgage upon them to Flower, and afterwards executed to Cornish an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, covering the mortgaged stock. Cornish took possession of the stock, and the *480situation became such that in order to get possession of the property covered by his mortgage, Flower brought in the district court, Eamsey county, an equitable action against Cornish, asking that such property be delivered to him. In that action the court caused the property to be sold, and the proceeds to be…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- The Erie Railway Company v. . RamseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Platto v. DeusterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- Mann v. FlowerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Endter v. LennonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Smith v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1840
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lewis v. HarwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- State v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Trees v. GlennSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- National Power & Paper Co. v. RossmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Gray v. South & North Alabama Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.