Clarke & Simmons, Inc. v. Rule
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hen-nepin county, Jelley, J., made on June 9, 1921, discharging an order to show cause and denying defendant’s motion to dissolve a writ of attachment. The facts are given in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
Defendant appeals from an order refusing to vacate an attachment. The affidavit on which the writ was issued charged “that defendant has assigned, secreted or disposed of his property and is about to further do so with the,intent to delay and defraud” his creditors. Defendant traversed the charge and the burden was on plaintiff to prove it. Jones v. Swank, 51 Minn. 285, 53 N. W. 634; Schoeneman v. Sowle, 102 Minn. 466, 113 N. W. 1061; Furst v. W. B. & W. G. Jordan, 142 Minn. 230, 171 N. W. 772.
Plaintiff’s affidavits, so far as they bear on the issue tendered, consist largely of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jones v. SwankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Nelson v. Adolph MunchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Schoeneman v. SowleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Viers v. PerrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Hurni v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Van Dam v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- First State Bank v. HultgrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Chalmers Motor Car Co. v. Midland Motors Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922