Strong v. Brown
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff, assignee for the benefit of creditors of David G-. Miller and Albert E. Parsons, copartners as Miller & Parsons, brought this■ action in the district court for Lac qui Parle county, to recover $1,306-damages for the taking of the assigned property by the defendant, sheriff of the county, on July 6 and 7, 1888, by virtue of writs of attachment in actions against the assignors.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff, assignee for the benefit of creditors of David G-. Miller and Albert E. Parsons, copartners as Miller & Parsons, brought this■ action in the district court for Lac qui Parle county, to recover $1,306-damages for the taking of the assigned property by the defendant, sheriff of the county, on July 6 and 7, 1888, by virtue of writs of attachment in actions against the assignors. The complaint shows that the ■ assignment was made and filed May 11,1888; that before it was filed, the plaintiff, by writing indorsed thereon, signed by him, attested by two witnesses and acknowledged,…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
By the act regulating assignments for the benefit of creditors, as originally passed, (Laws 1876, c. 44, § 3,) it was provided that “before any such assignee or assignees shall have power to take possession of any such estate so assigned, or any part thereof, or shall have any authority to sell, dispose of, or convert to the purposes of the trust of any part of such estate, and within five days after the filing of the inventory, as provided in section 2 of this act, he or they shall execute and file with the clerk of the court where-such assignment may be filed a good and sufficient bond,”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fuller v. HasbrouckMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Clark v. StantonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Kingman v. BartonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Perkins v. ZarracherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thomas Manufacturing Co. v. DrewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897