Crookston State Bank v. Lee
Supreme Court of Minnesota
From an order of the district court for Polk county, Watts, J., denying the motion of defendants E. O. Lee and W. B. Lee to dissolve an attachment levied upon certain premises described in the motion, they appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Dibell, O.
The defendants E. O. Lee and W. B. Lee appeal from an order •denying their motion to dissolve a writ of attachment issued under R. L. 1905, § 4216, (G. S. 1913, § 7846). The ground of the writ was their disposition of their property with intent to delay and de•fraud their creditors.
Abbreviating the facts and omitting those not essential to the .application of the controlling principle of law and stating them favorably to the contention of the plaintiff, the situation is about this: ■On April 5, 1913, when the attachment issued, the Lees through an assignment from Hattie L. Ross,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Means v. DowdSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Mackellar v. PillsburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Berry v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Holt Manufacturing Co. v. ThomasWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- Smith v. DeidrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Andrews v. O'HEARNNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
- Engenmoen v. LutroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Imperial Elevator Co. v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Finn v. Alliance BankCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
- Petersdorf v. MalzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.