Legal Opinion

Duncan v. Barnard Cope Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 21, 1929No. 27,331PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Motion to dismiss the appeal.

The action is one to appoint a receiver for and wind up the affairs of defendant corporation. H. A. Barnard was appointed as one of the receivers and later became sole receiver. He filed his final account, and hearing was had thereon. The court made its order settling the account and directing the payment of certain expenses of the receivership and certain debts of tlie receiver for merchandise purchased by him in carrying on the receivership business. This absorbed the funds remaining in the receiver’s hahds. He attempted to appeal from the, order, but the appeal…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Koochiching Co. v. FransonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  2. Farmers National Bank v. BackusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
  3. Northwestern National Bank v. Mickelson-Shapiro Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  4. Windom National Bank v. RenoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  5. In re State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Weckerling v. McNiven Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  2. In Re Trusteeship Under Last Will of RosenfeldtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  3. The Jesmer Co. v. Wurdemann-Hjelm Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  4. Umbreit v. Quality Tool, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Beatty v. Winona Housing & Redevelopment AuthoritySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967

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

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

Powered by the Exa API