Day v. McQuillan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was commenced in the District Court for Pamsey County by Franklin O. Day and William S. Stewart, as partners, as Derby & Day, to recover the amount alleged to be due said firm from defendant for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered by said firm to him.
Read the full summary
This action was commenced in the District Court for Pamsey County by Franklin O. Day and William S. Stewart, as partners, as Derby & Day, to recover the amount alleged to be due said firm from defendant for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered by said firm to him. The answer for a defense to the action alleges that on the ' 8th day of July,x186Y, in an action then pending in said Court brought by one Lorenzo Allis against said Franklin 0. Day, as surviving partner of Charles Derby and F. O. Day, late partners under the firm name of Derby & Day, to recover of said Franklin 0. Day,…
1Opinion of the CourtMcMillan, J.
By the Court The first question presented in this case is whether the interest of one partner in a debt, *207not cine, belonging to a partnership composed of two or more members, is attachable in. an action against him individually.
The attachment proceedings depend altogether upon statutory provisions, and under our statute are ancillary to the action. 8ec. 133, of ch. 66, Gen. Stat., p. 467, is as follows:
•“ All goods and chattels, real, personal and mixed, including all rights and shares in the stock of any corporation, all money, bills, notes, book-accounts, debts, credits, and all other,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Church v. KnoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Brewster v. HammetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gustafson v. RhinowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- State ex rel. Skyllingstad v. GunnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Calderwood v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Barrett v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Sperry v. FlygareSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900