Banning v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEV COUNTY. I. — By the Plaintiff’s own showing his judgment (as alleged) being docketed before the assignment was filed for record, there would be no cloud of title and therefore no cause of action.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEV COUNTY. I. — By the Plaintiff’s own showing his judgment (as alleged) being docketed before the assignment was filed for record, there would be no cloud of title and therefore no cause of action. Cox vs. Clift, 2 Comst., 118; Scott vs. Onderdonk, 4 Mem., 14; Hart vs. Marshall, 4 Minn., 294. II. — The Plaintiff having resorted to his execution and levied, should ffrst exhaust his legal remedy under his execution before he can have equitable relief, and should show a return of his execution unsatisfied. A levy on real estate does not give him any claim…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Atwater, J.
The complaint in this action states the recovery of a j udgment by Armstrong, against the Defendant Banning, for the sum of $1844.60 in the District Court in and for Ramsey County, and,that the same was duly docketed in said county on the 6th day of July, 1861, at 10 o’clock and twenty minutes a. m. That thereafter an execution was issued and levied upon certain real estate in said county, the property of Banning and Knox, the judgment debtors, which real estate is specified and described in the complaint.
That on the 5th day of July, 1861, the Defendants Banning and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beck v. BurdettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
3Cited by7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. University of Minnesota v. ChaseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- State ex rel. Smith v. Van ReedSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Gleason v. University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Bailey v. University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Scanlan v. MurphySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.