Jacobson v. Landolt
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Ozaule.ee County. The respondent, William, H. Landolt, commenced an action against one James W. Yail, on January 16, 1888, alleging in his complaint that the plaintiff and defendant were copartners, doing business as bankers at the city of Port "Washington, in this state, under the firm name of James W. Yail & Co.; that they both desired a dissolution of such copartnership; that there were large assets belonging thereto, and a large number…
Read the full summary
APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Ozaule.ee County. The respondent, William, H. Landolt, commenced an action against one James W. Yail, on January 16, 1888, alleging in his complaint that the plaintiff and defendant were copartners, doing business as bankers at the city of Port "Washington, in this state, under the firm name of James W. Yail & Co.; that they both desired a dissolution of such copartnership; that there were large assets belonging thereto, and a large number of creditors of the firm; and that the interests of all concerned required the appointment of a receiver of such assets,…
1Opinion of the CourtLvon-, J.
The rules of law upon which these appeals must be determined are not difficult, and may be very briefly stated. The appellant, Jacobson, who claims a special lien upon a portion of the copartnership property in the hands of the receiver, has the right to intervene in the partnership action for the purpose of asserting such lien. But inasmuch as the property came into the hands of the receiver before he levied his attachment upon it, in order to successfully assert his claim and lien thereupon it seems necessary that he should obtain a vacation of the order appointing the receiver. TIence he…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Faricy v. St. Paul Investment & Savings SocietySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Wohlwend v. J. I. Case Threshing-Machine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Blum v. Van VechtenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896