Weston v. Sumner
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Rice ■¡county, Buckham, J., presiding, sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to 3i portion of the answer. The case is stated in the opinion. Laws 1881, c. 148, § 4, speaks of two classes of instruments, to wit, those executed within the four months, and those not executed within the four months.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Rice ■¡county, Buckham, J., presiding, sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to 3i portion of the answer. The case is stated in the opinion. Laws 1881, c. 148, § 4, speaks of two classes of instruments, to wit, those executed within the four months, and those not executed within the four months. As to the former, they are only void if taken by one who has reasonable cause to believe that the debtor is insolvent; and as to the latter, they are void, whether executed in good or bad faith, if not filed before the commencement of such…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
It appears by the complaint that on the first day of December, 1881, insolvency proceedings were instituted against the Faribault Windmill Company in the district court, under the insolvent law of 1881, (Laws 1881, c. 148,) by the filing of a petition by creditors. Thereupon, and pursuant to that statute, this plaintiff was appointed receiver, and he has commenced these actions for the purpose of having adjudged void a chattel mortgage and a real-estate mortgage, executed by the Windmill Company to the respective defendants on the 19th day of November, 1881, and filed for record on the 25th…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Weston v. LoyhedSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bliss v. DotySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Chickering & Sons v. WhiteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890