Legal Opinion

Leqve v. Stoppel

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 7, 1896No. Nos. 9655-(293)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Olmsted county, Buckham, J., denying a motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

This was an action to have certain deeds, transfers, sales, and mortgages of the property, real and personal, of defendant Franz Joseph Stoppel, an insolvent, adjudged fraudulent and void as to his creditors, and the property recovered and marshaled as part of his estate, the plaintiff being his assignee in insolvency. On the findings of fact made by the court below, judgment was ordered in favor of all defendants. This appeal is from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial of the issues made with the defendants Stoppel only; no question being raised as to the correctness of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wetherill v. CanneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  2. Neuberger v. . KeimNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  3. Dunlap v. . HawkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  4. Howard v. RynearsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Davis v. HowardNew York Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Thysell v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  2. Officer v. SwindlehurstMontana Supreme Court · 1910
  3. State Bank of Gibbon v. FassbenderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API