Bliss v. Doty
Supreme Court of Minnesota
On December 1, 1882, plaintiff was appointed receiver of the estate of Pauline Graeff, an insolvent debtor. As such receiver he brought this action in the district court of Olmsted county, to recover property alleged to have been transferred by the insolvent, on August 24, 1882, to the defendant Doty, with a view to give a preference, etc. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled by Start, J., and the defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
We do not call to mind, nor are we referred to, any case in which this court has directly determined, in so many words, that section 4 of the insolvent act of 1881 (Laws 1881, c. 148) is applicable to involuntary proceedings under section 2 of that act. But in several cases we have not only assumed its applicability, but have made decisions upon that assumption which cannot be supported upon any other basis. Weston v. Sumner, 31 Minn. 456, (18 N. W. Rep. 149;) Moore v. Hayes, 35 Minn. 205, (28 N. W. Rep. 238;) Noyes v. Gill, 35 Minn. 289, (28 N. W. Rep. 711;) Daniels v. Palmer, 35 Minn. 347,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Daniels v. PalmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Weston v. LoyhedSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Daniels v. Bank of ZumbrotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Weston v. SumnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Moore v. HayesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bond v. Terrell Cotton & Woolen Manufacturing Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1891
- Hill County v. Bryant & HuffmanTexas Supreme Court · 1929
- Beardslee v. BeaupreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Hyde v. WeitznerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Foot v. OfstieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.