O'Brien v. Manwaring
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Washington county against defendant as assignee of Patrick McLaughlin and Patrick Kilty, and McLaughlin & Kilty, to recover $12,500 paid to defendant. At the trial defendant objected to any testimony being received on the grounds: (1) That the issue should have been made in a former action; and (2) that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Washington county against defendant as assignee of Patrick McLaughlin and Patrick Kilty, and McLaughlin & Kilty, to recover $12,500 paid to defendant. At the trial defendant objected to any testimony being received on the grounds: (1) That the issue should have been made in a former action; and (2) that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court, Williston, J., sustained the objection, and directed the action to be dismissed. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtLovely, J.
The plaintiff brings this action to recover a sum of money which he claims should be returned to him by the assignee of an insolvent estate, who has received the same, but, as is claimed, in equity and good conscience should be repaid.
Man waring, the assignee of McLaughlin & Kilty, in a former action considered 'by this court (75 Minn. 542, 78 N. W. 1) recovered of this plaintiff the possession of a stock of boots and shoes transferred to him before assignment by the insolvents. The recovery, upon the issues in that case,, may have been accorded by the jury under the instructions of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thompson v. MyrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Hathaway v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Manwaring v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Pierro v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Geiser Threshing Machine Co. v. FarmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. SillimanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- King v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Gustafson v. GustafsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Kinzel v. Boston & Duluth Farm Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Gallagher v. Irish-American BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.