Lough v. Flaherty
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Scott county, Macdonald, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. It was stipulated as a fact, at the trial, “that there was not and has not been any property or assets belonging to the estate of- which plaintiff was administrator, or in.the possession or control of plaintiff.”
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillaN, C. J.
This action was commenced against the defendant Flaherty to recover the possession of personal property. He justified as sheriff under a judgment and execution of this court for costs against this plaintiff, administrator of the estate of William Pitman, deceased, in an action brought by this plaintiff, as such administrator, against Thomas M. Pitman. After the answer, Thomas M. Pitman and John Pitman were made defendants. The point upon which the cause seems to have been tried in the court below, and which is made here, is as to whether the judgment pleaded in the answer might be enforced…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Woodruff v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. MendozaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Conlon v. HolsteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Minneapolis Street Railway Co. v. RosenbloomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- Randal v. ElderSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- State v. MendozaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977