Dow v. Sutphin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs, as holders of a chattel mortgage made to them by the members of the firm of Rickard, Witt & Co., on July 17, 1888, brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county against defendant, assignee in insolvency of the mortgagors, by assignment made in August 1888, to recover $1,678.60 for alleged conversion of the mortgaged property by defendant.
Read the full summary
Plaintiffs, as holders of a chattel mortgage made to them by the members of the firm of Rickard, Witt & Co., on July 17, 1888, brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county against defendant, assignee in insolvency of the mortgagors, by assignment made in August 1888, to recover $1,678.60 for alleged conversion of the mortgaged property by defendant. In his answer the defendant pleaded that the mortgage was void as an unlawful preference under the insolvency law. A jury was waived, and the action tried by Stearns, J., who ordered judgment for defendant, which was entered, and…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
But two questions are presented by this appeal. One is whether the plaintiffs had reasonable cause to believe Rickard, Witt & Co. insolvent at the time of the execution and delivery of the chattel mortgage under which they claim the right to recover in this action for conversion. The other question is as to the right of the defendant, who is the assignee of Rickard, Witt & Co. under the insolvency statutes, to defend herein upon the ground that when taking the mortgage the plaintiffs had obtained the fraudulent preference forbidden by the law, having at the time reasonable cause to believe…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bannon v. BowlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Berry v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Sisters of the Sorrowful MotherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Smith v. DeidrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Holcombe v. EhrmanntrautSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thompson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893