Legal Opinion

Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Carstens

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 23, 1956No. 36,839PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nelson, Judge.

The question presented here is whether a horse not used for farm purposes is exempt from claims of creditors, the owner’s occupation and business being that of a contractor. The plaintiff Fullerton Lumber Company issued and served a garnishment summons upon Willard C. Carstens, d.b.a. Carstens Construction Company, as defendant, and Clarence E. Peterson, d.b.a. Valley View Road Stables, as garnishee. The main action and claim thereunder is not involved in the present proceedings. At the disclosure the garnishee testified that, at the time of the service of the garnishment…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Poznanovic v. MakiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  2. Cohen v. GouldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  3. Grimestad v. LofgrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  4. Bertozzi v. SwisherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Whitney v. WelnitzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re LevaUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · 1989
  2. Paul v. PaulSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
  3. In Re MeyerUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 1989
  4. Loretta Christine Nascene and Scott Robert NasceneUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API