Easton v. Goodwin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court, for Faribault county, Dickinson, J., presiding, denying a. motion to set aside the levy of an attachment.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court, for Faribault county, Dickinson, J., presiding, denying a. motion to set aside the levy of an attachment. The grounds of the motion were : 1. That the goods attached belonged to-the firm of Eoyce & Goodwin, in which the defendant was a partner, and that the firm property was insufficient to pay the firm debts. 2. That the attachment was levied on the-partnership property, and not on defendant’s interest therein. 3. That the defendant had no attachable interest in the property. 4. That the goods attached were not attached as-defendant’s…
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
After the sheriff had taken into his custody the property levied upon under the writ of attachment, at the request of defendant and his partner, Boyce, he surrendered up the possession of the same to them on July 24, 1874, upon their causing to be executed and delivered to him the following receipt:
“We have this day received from A. B. Davis, sheriff of Faribault county, the goods and chattels mentioned and described in the inventory hereto annexed, the same being the goods of Benjamin F. Goodwin, attached in suit of Jason C. Easton v. B. F. Goodwin, said Goodwin being the owner of the equal…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cornell v. . DakinNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- The People v. . ReederNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Scanlan v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
3Cited by5 opinions
- Greengard v. FretzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Case, Bishop & Co. v. D. M. Steele & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Cooper v. Davis Mill Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Mason v. AldrichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Holcomb v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888