Legal Opinion

Tolerton & Stetson Co. v. Casperson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1895PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from circuit court, Kingsbury county. Hon. J. O. Andrews, Judge. Action in attachment. From an order dissolving an attache ment, plaintiff appeals. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. A chattel mortgage is fraudulent as to creditors when there is an agreement between tbe parties that tbe mortgagor may use and dispose of tbe mortgaged goods in tbe usual course of trade. First National v. Cqipifort, 28 N. W. 855; Greeley v. Winsor, 2 S. D., 361; Anderson y.

Read the full summary

Appeal from circuit court, Kingsbury county. Hon. J. O. Andrews, Judge. Action in attachment. From an order dissolving an attache ment, plaintiff appeals. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. A chattel mortgage is fraudulent as to creditors when there is an agreement between tbe parties that tbe mortgagor may use and dispose of tbe mortgaged goods in tbe usual course of trade. First National v. Cqipifort, 28 N. W. 855; Greeley v. Winsor, 2 S. D., 361; Anderson y. Patterson, 25 N, W 541; Wile v. Butler, 34 Pac. 1110; Aikin v. Pascoll, 24 Pac. 1039; Buford v. McPhorter, 21 Pac. 86. A fraudulent…

1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order discharging an attachment. There are two preliminary motions — one on the part of the appellant, and one on the part of the respondent— necessary to be determined.

The motion of the appellant is to strike out the respondent’s additional abstract, for the reason that such abstract “is not a further or additional abstract, showing matters necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented, but is simply a printed motion, under the guise of an abstract, to strike out certain parts of appellant’s abstract.” In the appellant’s abstract appear copies of a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dickerson v. ColgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Croft v. BunsterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
  3. Barney v. SchmeiderSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  4. Falk v. GoldbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
  5. Quebec Bank v. CarrollSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Weber v. United Hardware & Implement Mutuals Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Reichert v. ReichertSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Sutton v. Consolidated Apex Min. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Chleboun v. VarilekSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Mather v. DarstSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API