Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. v. McPheely
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Dawes county. Tried below before Kinkaid, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The evidence shows that defendant had parted with the legal title to the attached property, as well as with the possession of the same. He therefore had no such interest therein as would support a motion to dissolve.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Dawes county. Tried below before Kinkaid, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The evidence shows that defendant had parted with the legal title to the attached property, as well as with the possession of the same. He therefore had no such interest therein as would support a motion to dissolve. (Chandler v. Mash, 5 Mich., 409; Price v. Peed, 20 Id., 72; Mitchell v. Skinner, 17 Kan., 563; Zook v. Blough, 42 Mich., 487; Mendes v. Freiters, 16 Nev., 388.) Plaintiff was entitled to rely on the representations made by defendant to the First National Bank of…
1Opinion of the Court
Ragan, C.
The plaintiff in error attached a stock of goods belonging to the defendant in error. The district court of Dawes county discharged the attachment and the plaintiff in error brings the case here and asks the reversal of this order of the district court. The grounds of attachment alleged in the affidavit are: First, that said defendant has assigned and disposed of his property with intent to defraud his creditors; second, that the defendant fraudulently contracted the debt.
As to the first ground of attachment, the evidence in the record not only does not show, or tend to show, that…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Grand Island Banking Co. v. CostelloNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. v. BremersNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- T. A. Shaw & Co. v. Robinson & Stokes Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Luikart v. TidrickNebraska Supreme Court · 1934
- John V. Farwell Co. v. WrightNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.