Prouty v. Hallowell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by petitioner, Charles N. Proutv, from an order of the District Court of HennepiD County, Chas. M. Pond, J., made July 14, 1892, refusing to appoint a receiver in insolvency of the property of Morris L. Hallowell, Jr., and Samuel P. Snider.
Read the full summary
Appeal by petitioner, Charles N. Proutv, from an order of the District Court of HennepiD County, Chas. M. Pond, J., made July 14, 1892, refusing to appoint a receiver in insolvency of the property of Morris L. Hallowell, Jr., and Samuel P. Snider. On April 29, 1892, Prouty presented to the District Court a petition supported by affidavits, and obtained an order requiring Morris L. Hallowell, Jr., and Samuel P. Snider, co-partners, to show cause before the court on May 7, 1892, why a receiver should not he appointed of all their nonexempt property, on the ground of their insolvency, under Laws…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Upon the affidavit and petition duly made by the attorney for the plaintiff in the above-entitled action, (which was then awaiting trial,) the court issued its order that defendant show cause, at a specified time and place, why a receiver should not be appointed under the provisions of the insolvency laws of this state. Both parties filed other affidavits bearing upon the matter, and, after a number of continuances, a final hearing was had, July 2, 1892. The court thereafter made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that defendants were entitled to have the order…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- D. M. Osborne & Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Du Toit v. FergestadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893