Bowers v. Mayo
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Clay county, to recover for the alleged conversion by defendants of a stock of hardware. The answer denies plaintiff’s ownership, and justifies the taking of the goods under writs of attachment against one George Garver. Plaintiff’s title is based upon an alleged transfer from George Garver, claimed to have been made prior to the levy of the writs of attachment.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Clay county, to recover for the alleged conversion by defendants of a stock of hardware. The answer denies plaintiff’s ownership, and justifies the taking of the goods under writs of attachment against one George Garver. Plaintiff’s title is based upon an alleged transfer from George Garver, claimed to have been made prior to the levy of the writs of attachment. The action was tried before Stearns, J., and a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict. Defendants appeal from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The principal question in this ease is the alleged fraudulent character of the sale and transfer of a stock of hardware by one George Garver to the plaintiff, who was his sister. The alleged purchase had been consummated in her absence, through her husband, W. W. Bowers, who had previously been in Garver’s employ, and who received and continued in the actual possession of the goods after the transfer was made. On being called and examined as a witness in her behalf, he testified that at the time of the levy of the attachment by defendants, he was in the.actual possession of the goods; that he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lebanon Savings Bank v. HollenbeckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- Homberger v. BrandenbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Riddell v. MunroSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892