Dahoot v. Colby

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Dahoot v. Colby

177 N.W. 763, 146 Minn. 470, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 652

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 28, 1920

DocketNo. 21,836

StatusPublished

This text of 177 N.W. 763 (Dahoot v. Colby) 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

Dahoot v. Colby, 177 N.W. 763, 146 Minn. 470, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 652 (Mich. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

Appeal from an order appointing a receiver in an action to wind up the affairs of a copartnership. The matter of appointing a receiver in such proceedings rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 8248. The contention of appellant is that such discretion was abused in this instance. A careful consideration of the record fails to sustain that contention, and we are unable to so declare. There is no danger of mismanagement in controversies of no greater magnitude than that here involved. On application the trial court will he authorized to make such specific order in protection of the rights of the parties, and in controlling the expense incident to the trust pending the action, as the situation and facts may justify and require.

Order affirmed.

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

Pee Cubiam.

Appeal from an order appointing a receiver in an action to wind up the affairs of a copartnership. The matter of appointing a receiver in such proceedings rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 8248. The contention of appellant is that such discretion was abused in this instance. A careful consideration of the record fails to sustain that contention, and we are unable to so declare. There is no danger of mismanagement in controversies of no greater magnitude than that here involved. On application the trial court will he authorized to make such specific order in protection of the rights of the parties, and in controlling the expense incident to the trust pending the action, as the situation and facts may justify and require.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 N.W. 763, 146 Minn. 470, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dahoot-v-colby-minn-1920.