Blake v. Sherman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
.An attachment was issued in this action, upon an affidavit of the plaintiff, and also of one J. 0. Chandler, against the property of the defendant. A motion to dissolve the attachment was made in the district court for Olmsted county, upon certain grounds specified in the notice of motion, which motion was granted, and an order made dissolving such attachment. The plaintiff appeals to this court from such order.
Read the full summary
.An attachment was issued in this action, upon an affidavit of the plaintiff, and also of one J. 0. Chandler, against the property of the defendant. A motion to dissolve the attachment was made in the district court for Olmsted county, upon certain grounds specified in the notice of motion, which motion was granted, and an order made dissolving such attachment. The plaintiff appeals to this court from such order. The affidavits upon which the attachment issued, and the several questions of practice presented, fully appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Qoivrt
Berry, J.
In this ease, a writ of attachment was allowed by the Court Commissioner of Olmsted county against the respondent, and the same was vacated by the district court upon the respondent’s motion. From the vacating order, an appeal is taken to this court by the plaintiff in the attachment. At the hearing below, it was urged that the notice of motion to vacate was insufficient, and that an order to show cause should have been obtained. Sec. 140, page 469, G-m. Stat., provides that the defendant may “apply to the court on notice to vacate the writ of attachment.” There being at…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Cutler v. RobertsNebraska Supreme Court · 1878
- Lovering v. Webb Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Harris v. J. Regester & SonsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
- Jellison v. HalloranSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Golden Valley County v. CurtinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.