Legal Opinion

First National Bank v. Randall

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 10, 1888PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Winona county, Start, J., presiding, vacating a writ of attachment.

1Opinion of the Court

Dickinson, J.1

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the district court, vacating a writ of attachment against the property of the defendants, J. J. and C. S. Randall. The appellant claims that the defendants had no right to move for the vacation of the attachment, because (1) the time.for answering had expired, and, while *383.an answer bad been made, it was frivolous, and constituted no de.fence; (2) it did not appear that there had been any levy made under •the writ of attachment; and (3) the defendants had made a general statutory assignment of all their property for the benefit…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. King v. RemingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
  2. Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1879

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Minneapolis Gaslight Co. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  2. Olmstead v. OlmsteadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  3. State v. MadiganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  4. First State Bank v. SchatzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  5. Rosenberg v. BurnsteinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API