Swart v. Thomas
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In each of these cases, the plaintiff, as assignee of Shepard & Cummings, under a general assignment in trust for the benefit of creditors, sued the defendant, in a justice’s court, to recover the value of goods sold and delivered to him by plaintiff’s assignors.
Read the full summary
In each of these cases, the plaintiff, as assignee of Shepard & Cummings, under a general assignment in trust for the benefit of creditors, sued the defendant, in a justice’s court, to recover the value of goods sold and delivered to him by plaintiff’s assignors. In each case, the defen ¿ant denied that plaintiff ever accepted the trust, or filed his bond, within the time required by law, and alleged a levy on the debt in suit, under an execution against plaintiff’s assignors. The plaintiff having obtained judgment in each case, the defendants appealed to the district court for Winona county,…
1Opinion of the CourtGilrillan, C. J.
These cases differ essentially from that of Kingman v. Barton, 24 Minn. 295. In that case, the assignee failed to file his bond within the time prescribed by statute. The court held that the filing of a bond as required is in the nature of an acceptance of the trust, and an appearance in, and submission to the jurisdiction of, the court, for the purposes of the trust, by the assignee; and that his failure to file the bond, within the time prescribed, is equivalent to a refusal to accept the trust, and terminates whatever title vests in him by the filing of the assignment. It does not follow,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark v. StantonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Kingman v. BartonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lesher v. GetmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Ide v. HarwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Haben v. HarshawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Kreher v. MasonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Elliott v. BowmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.