Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber Co.

25 Minn. 461, 1879 Minn. LEXIS 28
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 23, 1879·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gileillan, C. J.

The objection made here to the affidavit on which the attachment was allowed — to wit, that it is in the alternative — is not well founded in fact. Guile v. McNanny, 14 Minn. 520.

The objection to the writ, on account of the blank in it, is not specified in the notice of motion, and there is nothing in the record showing that it was brought to the attention of the [462]*462court below on the hearing of the motion, and it cannot be considered here.

Upon the merits of the motion — that is, whether the ground for the attachment • stated in the affidavit was true — the affidavits are conflicting, and upon them two equally fair minds might arrive at opposite conclusions. Where such is the case, this court will not interfere with the finding upon the fact of the court below.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber Co., 25 Minn. 461, 1879 Minn. LEXIS 28 (Mich. 1879).

25 Minn. 461 (Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American National Bank of Lake Crystal v. Klist
192 N.W. 190 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1923)
First National Bank v. Randall
37 N.W. 799 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)