Mackellar v. Pillsbury
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by intervener, Samuel A. Booth, from an order of the district court of Hennepin county, Pond, J., made September 30, 1891, denying, his motion for a new trial, On January 3, 1890, Charles E. Cottrell was a manufacturer of flour barrels at Minneapolis, and had there in his cooperage warehouse a large quantity of barrels and material for making barrels. He was largely indebted.
Read the full summary
Appeal by intervener, Samuel A. Booth, from an order of the district court of Hennepin county, Pond, J., made September 30, 1891, denying, his motion for a new trial, On January 3, 1890, Charles E. Cottrell was a manufacturer of flour barrels at Minneapolis, and had there in his cooperage warehouse a large quantity of barrels and material for making barrels. He was largely indebted. Some of his notes and acceptances were outstanding in the Twenty-Third Ward Bank of New York city. On that day he made a bill of sale to the plaintiff, Thomas Mackellar, of a large quantity of this barrel material…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
In these cases the appellant, Booth, as assignee of C. E. Cottrell, assails the validity of the sale of certain personal property by his assignor to the plaintiff, Mackellar, on two grounds, to wit: First, that it was void under the insolvent law of 1881, ch. 148, because made in contemplation of insolvency with a view of giving a preference to one creditor over others; and, second, that it was void, on common-law principles, because made with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors. A mere preference by a debtor of one creditor to another is not fraudulent or void at common law,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nash v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Berry v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Smith v. DeidrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Vose v. StickneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
- Molm v. BartonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
3Cited by25 opinions
- Welch v. SpiesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Matchan v. Phoenix Land Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Crookston State Bank v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Engenmoen v. LutroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Finn v. Alliance BankCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.