Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The defendant moved, in the district court for Hennepin county, to vacate- a writ of attachment, (1) for insufficiency of the affidavit on which the writ was allowed; (2) because the statements in the affidavit were not true; and (3) for want of the bond required by statute. The affidavit stated “that defendant is about to assign or dispose of his property, with intent to delay or defraud its creditors.” The motion was denied by Young, J., and the defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
The defendant moved, in the district court for Hennepin county, to vacate- a writ of attachment, (1) for insufficiency of the affidavit on which the writ was allowed; (2) because the statements in the affidavit were not true; and (3) for want of the bond required by statute. The affidavit stated “that defendant is about to assign or dispose of his property, with intent to delay or defraud its creditors.” The motion was denied by Young, J., and the defendant appealed. The writ recited an application for a writ of attachment against the property of the Minneapolis Lumber Company, defendant, and…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
The objection made here to the affidavit on which the attachment was allowed — to wit, that it is in the alternative — is not well founded in fact. Guile v. McNanny, 14 Minn. 520.
The objection to the writ, on account of the blank in it, is not specified in the notice of motion, and there is nothing in the record showing that it was brought to the attention of the *462court below on the hearing of the motion, and it cannot be considered here.
Upon the merits of the motion — that is, whether the ground for the attachment • stated in the affidavit was true — the affidavits are conflicting, and upon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Guile v. McNannySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
3Cited by2 opinions
- First National Bank v. RandallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- American National Bank of Lake Crystal v. KlistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923