TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nelson v. Adolph Munch

Charles N. Nelson and others, Executors v. Adolph Munch and others

Nelson v. Munch, 23 Minn. 229 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 25, 1876
Judges
Berry
Citations
23 Minn. 2291876 Minn. LEXIS 124
Headnotes
Attachment — Affidavit not Inconsistent. — An affidavit for an attachment, stating that defendant has assigned and disposed of his property, with intent to delay and defraud his creditors, and that he is about to assign and dispose of his property, with like intent, is not necessarily objectionable for inconsistency. Same — Motion to Dissolve — Verified Answer used as Affidavit. — Upon a motion to dissolve an attachment a defendant may properly use his verified answer as an affidavit, so far as its contents are pertinent. Same — Rebutting Affidavits of Defendant. — In the exercise of sound discretion it is competent for the court, upon the hearing of such motion, to permit the defendant to read affidavits rebutting the affidavits of the plaintiff read upon such hearing.
Summary
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Kamsey county, Wühin, J., presiding, dissolving an attachment of the property of defendant Adolph Munch.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Berry

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

' Berry, J.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment.

1. The writ was issued upon an affidavit stating that defendant Adolph Munch has assigned and disposed of his property with intent to delay and defraud his creditors, and that he is about to assign and dispose of his property with like intent. These statements are not, as claimed by respondents, necessarily objectionable for inconsistency, since it may be true, at any given time, that a person has assigned and disposed of some part of his property with the intent mentioned, and that he is about to assign and dispose of another part with like intent. The case differs from Hinds v. Fagebank, 9 Minn. 68 , because there the property which the defendant was charged with having disposed of, and being about to dispose of, consisted, as the court says, of “ a single item only.”

2. Upon a motion to dissolve an attachment a defendant may properly use his verified answer as an affidavit, so far as its contents are pertinent.

In the exercise of sound discretion it is competent for the court, upon the hearing of such motion, to permit the defendant to read affidavits rebutting the affidavits- of the plaintiff read upon such hearing. *■

In the case at bar there is no reason to suppose that the court below abused its discretion in receiving the affidavits offered in rebuttal.

3. As respects the merits of the order appealed from, after a careful consideration of the affidavits on both sides and of the positions taken by counsel, we are of opinion that the court below was justified in dissolving the attachment.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1885–1886: 11895–1896: 21905–1906: 11921–1922: 11925–1926: 11931–1932: 118852026peak 1895 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Reynolds v. Smith49 Fla. 217 (1905)
  2. Ford v. Wilson288 S.W. 712 (Ark. 1926)
  3. Deseret National Bank v. Little, Roundy & Co.44 P. 930 (Utah 1896)
  4. Smith v. Baker80 Ala. 318 (1885)
  5. Clarke & Simmons, Inc. v. Rule185 N.W. 947 (Minn. 1921)
  6. Salmon v. Mills68 F. 180 (8th Cir. 1895)

Most recent

  1. First State Bank v. Hultgren245 N.W. 829 (Minn. 1932)
  2. Ford v. Wilson288 S.W. 712 (Ark. 1926)
  3. Clarke & Simmons, Inc. v. Rule185 N.W. 947 (Minn. 1921)
  4. Reynolds v. Smith49 Fla. 217 (1905)
  5. Deseret National Bank v. Little, Roundy & Co.44 P. 930 (Utah 1896)
  6. Salmon v. Mills68 F. 180 (8th Cir. 1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hinds v. Fagebank, 9 Minn. 68 (1864) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list