Hinds v. Fagebank
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL FROM TIIE DISTRICT COURT OE SCOTT COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellant. I. No fraudulent intent is shown by the affidavit except by the wholesale conclusion sworn to, which could not by any possibility be within the personal knowledge of the affiant. These cannot be taken as evidence. Bowen & Me Oonnell vs,-IlanJcs, 1st Western Law Monthly, 113-14.
1Opinion of the Court
*69 By the Court
Atwater, J.
This was an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an attachment issued by L. M. Brown, Court Commissioner. ■ The action was brought upon a promissory note executed by Defendant. The material facts stated by Plaintiff in his affidavit for attachment, after stating the making and execution of the note by Defendant, the transfer of the same to Plaintiff, on or about the 20th day of May, 1863, and that he was the owner of the same, are as follows, viz:
“ That at the time the said promissory note was sold and transferred to deponent, and on the 23d day of May,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bloomer v. McQuewanSupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Decker v. BryantNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Frost v. WillardNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Pierse v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1852
- Prince v. HeenanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nelson v. Adolph MunchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Semper v. CoatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- First National Bank v. SproutNebraska Supreme Court · 1907