Williamson v. Hatch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, George E. Williamson, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Thomas Canty, J., entered May 29,1893. On March 4, 1891, Philo L. Hatch owned lots one (1), two (2) and three (3) in block fourteen (14) in Wells, Sampson & Bell’s Addition to Minneapolis valued at $100,000, but incumbered $40,000. He was insolvent and owed over $75,000 beside the mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, George E. Williamson, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Thomas Canty, J., entered May 29,1893. On March 4, 1891, Philo L. Hatch owned lots one (1), two (2) and three (3) in block fourteen (14) in Wells, Sampson & Bell’s Addition to Minneapolis valued at $100,000, but incumbered $40,000. He was insolvent and owed over $75,000 beside the mortgage. He and Ms wife, Eleanor W. Hatch, on that day gave their son, Raymond W. Hatch a power of attorney, authorizing him to sell and convey the property, and on the same day they removed from the State. On March…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
There are but three questions in this case requiring particular notice.
1. The petition for the appointment of a receiver of the estate of Philo W. Hatch was filed the day before the assignment of the securities made in trust and for the benefit of the defendants the Minneapolis Fuel Company and Wentworth & Co., creditors of Hatch, but the hearing thereon and the appointment of the receiver took place after such transfer.
The filing of the petition did not ipso facto avoid the transfer. The case of Beardslee v. Beaupre, 44 Minn. 1, (46 N. W. Rep. 137,) only decides that the date of filing the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Daniels v. PalmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Beardslee v. BeaupreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890