Fairbanks v. Whitney
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In this action, pending in the district court for Faribault county, the garnishee summons was duly served on November 7,1885. From the disclosure of the garnishee it appeared that he had at this time certain notes belonging to the defendant in his possession.
Read the full summary
In this action, pending in the district court for Faribault county, the garnishee summons was duly served on November 7,1885. From the disclosure of the garnishee it appeared that he had at this time certain notes belonging to the defendant in his possession. It also appeared that on November 16, 1885, the defendant made an assignment to the garnishee of all his property for the benefit of his creditors, which assignment was intended to be made under the provisions' of Laws 1881, c. 148. The assignment was not filed in the office of the clerk of the court till November 24, 1885. Upon these…
1Opinion of the Court
Berry, J.1
The summons in this action was served on Goodwin, the principal defendant, on November 7th, and on the same day the garnishment summons was served on Whitney, the garnishee. On November 16th Goodwin executed an assignment for benefit of creditors to Whitney, which, however, was not filed with the clerk of the district court until November 24th.
The garnishment takes precedence of the assignment whether the latter is, as claimed by plaintiff, a common-law assignment under Gen. St. 1878, c. 41, or, as held by the trial, court, one under our insolvent act of 1881. Laws 1881, c. 148. If…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re MannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Kingman v. BartonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Simon v. MannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Johnson v. BraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re Church & Graves Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Thompson v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889