Clark v. Stanton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
On February 3,1875, Edwin Clark and William H. Clark, ■copartners as E. & W. H. Clark, made a general assignment, for the benefit of creditors, to Judson A. Stanton.
Read the full summary
On February 3,1875, Edwin Clark and William H. Clark, ■copartners as E. & W. H. Clark, made a general assignment, for the benefit of creditors, to Judson A. Stanton. Subsequently the said Edwin Clark petitioned the district court for' Stearns county, under the provisions of chapter 44, of the General Laws of Minnesota for 1876, that the said Stanton be required to make and file his report as required by the aforesaid act, and that the proceedings of said assignee be investigated by said court, and that his said trust be closed, and for other relief. In accordance with an order of the court…
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
It is contended by appellant that the jurisdiction over assignments for the benefit of creditors, and proceedings thereunder, which is given by chapter 44, Gen. Laws 1876, is vested solely in the several judges of the district courts of the state, and not in the courts themselves as-such; that in using the expression, “judge of the district court,” in designating by whom the powers conferred are to> be exercised, the statute recognizes a distinction between the judge and the court, and indicates the former and not the latter as the sole depositary of such powers. Hence, it is claimed that the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Estate of WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Brown v. Maplewood Cemetery Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Swart v. ThomasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- In Re Trusts Created by HormelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- Second National Bank v. SchranckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.