Tereau v. Madison
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Polk county. Defendant obtained an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why a writ of attachment should not, be vacated and why the property seized thereunder should not be released. From an order, Watts, J„ vacating the attachment and releasing a gray mare seized under it, plaintiff appealed.
1Per curiam
This is an action to recover money upon contract. The plaintiff procured a writ of attachment. In his affidavit he alleged as grounds for the writ, that the defendant “has assigned, secreted, disposed of his property with intent to delay and defraud his creditors, and is about to dispose of the rest of his property, with the same intent.”
Under this writ the sheriff seized one gray mare belonging to the defendant; the defendant procured an order to show cause why the writ should not be vacated and the property released. Upon the hearing the matter was submitted upon affidavits filed by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. SwankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jandera v. Lakefield Farmers UnionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- In Re Supervised Voluntary Dissolution of Marich Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Sweeney v. McMahonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Burkhard v. BarnesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Lenahan v. LandsbergerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986