Bennett v. Denny
Supreme Court of Minnesota
On December 31, 1883, a writ of attachment, issued from the district court for Hennepin county, was duly levied on a portion of the stock of Yan Norman & Brother, a copartnership doing business at Minneapolis. On the same day Yan Norman & Brother made an assignment to plaintiff under the insolvent law.
Read the full summary
On December 31, 1883, a writ of attachment, issued from the district court for Hennepin county, was duly levied on a portion of the stock of Yan Norman & Brother, a copartnership doing business at Minneapolis. On the same day Yan Norman & Brother made an assignment to plaintiff under the insolvent law. Laws 1881, c. 148. On the same day, a writ of attachment was issued in an action against Van Norman & Brother, in the United States circuit court for the district of Minnesota, by virtue of which writ the defendant, the marshal of the district, levied upon and took into his possession the stock…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The holding of this court (In re Mann, 32 Minn. 60,) that an assignment under our insolvent law is not invalidated by the fraudulent intent of the assignor, has recently been followed and sanctioned in Simon v. Mann, ante, p. 412, and we see no occasion to re-examine it. In the case at bar fraud is charged upon the as-signee as well as the assignor, and in that particular the defendant claims that it differs from In re Mann. But we agree with the trial court that the difference is unimportant, and that the principle of In re Mann is applicable to fraud of the assignee also. The considerations…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re MannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re Van NormanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Long v. GeorgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- McClure v. CampbellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Jenks v. LuddenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Hall v. HarrisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.