Holtoquist v. Clark
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants, Simon Clark, William A. Cant and Robert F. Fitzgerald, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, S. H. Moer, J., made March 10, 1894, denying their motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants, Simon Clark, William A. Cant and Robert F. Fitzgerald, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, S. H. Moer, J., made March 10, 1894, denying their motion for a new trial. On February 15, 1898, Simon Clark, Alexander M. Morrison and Joseph J. Thatcher were partners in grocery trade at Duluth under the firm name of Simon Clark & Co. Clark owned individually a large amount of real estate situated in St. Louis county and was financially embarrassed. On that day he executed and acknowledged an assignment of all his unexempt property under Laws 1881, ch. 148,…
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
On the 17th day of April, 1893, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant Simon Clark and one Andrew1 Jackson in the District Court of St. Louis county for the sum of $3,048.83. On the 15th day of February, 1893, Simon Clark executed an assignment of his property in form substantially as is usually done under Laws 1881, ch. 148, and its amendments, containing a clause, however, in addition to the usual one of a present *64conveyance of his property, as follows: “This conveyance shall cover and include all property, of every nature and kind whatsoever, held or owned by me at the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re Southard's WillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Second National Bank v. SchranckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brown v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899