Melin v. Stuart
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The issues raised by intervener’s complaint in intervention and the answer thereto in an action in the municipal court of Minneapolis were tried before O. L. Smith, J., and a jury which answered in the negative the question whether the assignment to the intervener was made in good faith. -Plaintiff appealed from an order setting aside the verdict and granting intervener’s motion for a new trial.
1Per curiam
The defendant is an employee of the city of Minneapolis. The plaintiff, having secured a judgment against him, garnished the city. The city disclosed that $133.20 of the salary due the defendant had been assigned by him to A. M. Higgins.
Pursuant to an order made on the application of the plaintiff, Mr. Higgins appeared and filed a complaint in intervention setting forth his claim to the $133.20. At the subsequent trial between the plaintiff and the intervener a single question was submitted to the jury in the following form: “Was the assignment to Mr. Higgins made in good faith to apply on an…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wood v. CullenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- Kramer v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Burgraf v. ByrnesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Hansen v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Nelson v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.