Comstock v. Frederickson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Comstock v. Frederickson

53 N.W. 713, 51 Minn. 350, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 86

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 23, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 53 N.W. 713 (Comstock v. Frederickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comstock v. Frederickson, 53 N.W. 713, 51 Minn. 350, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 86 (Mich. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Yanderburgh, I.

An application was made by B. A. Bilkins, receiver of the property and estate of the defendant Brederickson, an insolvent, to set aside the judgment entered in this action in the district court of Redwood county. The affidavit upon which the motion is based shows that he was duly appointed such receiver by the superior court of Cóok county, in the state of Illinois, and duly qualified as such, and that there are no creditors of the insolvent in this state, but that all the creditors of the defendant are nonresidents.» The court dismissed the application on plaintiff’s motion without a hearing on the merits, on the ground that the authority of a receiver does not extend beyond the limits of the state in which he is appointed, that he is the mere creature of the court which appoints him, and cannot exercise his powers beyond its jurisdiction. Strictly, the statutory powers of a foreign assignee or receiver cannot ex propria vigore be recognized as having any force or effect here, but, by the comity existing between the states, which is recognized as a part of the common law, effect may be given to titles and powers derived from the laws of another state or country, by the courts of this state, when this can be done without contravening the laws or policy of the state, or interfering with the rights of creditors pursuing their remedies under our laws. In re Waite, 99 N. Y. 448, (2 N. E. Rep. 440;) High, Rec. (2d Ed.) § 241; Beach, Rec. § 682; 22 Amer. Law. Reg. 294-298.

[353]*353This application of the rule is sustained by the later and better decisions, and by sound reason. The narrower view, as applied to foreign executors and administrators, is followed and applied on the ground of stare decisis. Putnam v. Pitney, 45 Minn. 246, (47 N. W. Rep. 790.)

No other points require attention.

Order reversed.

(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 713.)

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

Yanderburgh, I.

An application was made by B. A. Bilkins, receiver of the property and estate of the defendant Brederickson, an insolvent, to set aside the judgment entered in this action in the district court of Redwood county. The affidavit upon which the motion is based shows that he was duly appointed such receiver by the superior court of Cóok county, in the state of Illinois, and duly qualified as such, and that there are no creditors of the insolvent in this state, but that all the creditors of the defendant are nonresidents.» The court dismissed the application on plaintiff’s motion without a hearing on the merits, on the ground that the authority of a receiver does not extend beyond the limits of the state in which he is appointed, that he is the mere creature of the court which appoints him, and cannot exercise his powers beyond its jurisdiction. Strictly, the statutory powers of a foreign assignee or receiver cannot ex propria vigore be recognized as having any force or effect here, but, by the comity existing between the states, which is recognized as a part of the common law, effect may be given to titles and powers derived from the laws of another state or country, by the courts of this state, when this can be done without contravening the laws or policy of the state, or interfering with the rights of creditors pursuing their remedies under our laws. In re Waite, 99 N. Y. 448, (2 N. E. Rep. 440;) High, Rec. (2d Ed.) § 241; Beach, Rec. § 682; 22 Amer. Law. Reg. 294-298.

[353]*353This application of the rule is sustained by the later and better decisions, and by sound reason. The narrower view, as applied to foreign executors and administrators, is followed and applied on the ground of stare decisis. Putnam v. Pitney, 45 Minn. 246, (47 N. W. Rep. 790.)

No other points require attention.

Order reversed.

(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 713.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 N.W. 713, 51 Minn. 350, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comstock-v-frederickson-minn-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack