Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Hursey

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Hursey

61 N.W. 672, 60 Minn. 17, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 8, 1895

DocketNo. 9093

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 N.W. 672 (Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Hursey) 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

Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Hursey, 61 N.W. 672, 60 Minn. 17, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 136 (Mich. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

CANTY, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order dissolving an attachment as to the defendant Wilmot A. Hursey on his motion. The ground of the attachment is that the plaintiff’s debt was fraudulently contracted in this: that the defendants purchased of the plaintiff the goods for the price of which the action is brought, -with the preconceived intention of not paying for them, and when they were insolvent. The motion was made and opposed on affidavits which are conflicting. The decision of the court below is conclusive unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence opposed to that decision (First Nat. Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382, 37 N. W. 799), which there certainly is not.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. So ordered.

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

CANTY, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order dissolving an attachment as to the defendant Wilmot A. Hursey on his motion. The ground of the attachment is that the plaintiff’s debt was fraudulently contracted in this: that the defendants purchased of the plaintiff the goods for the price of which the action is brought, -with the preconceived intention of not paying for them, and when they were insolvent. The motion was made and opposed on affidavits which are conflicting. The decision of the court below is conclusive unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence opposed to that decision (First Nat. Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382, 37 N. W. 799), which there certainly is not.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.W. 672, 60 Minn. 17, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finance-co-of-pennsylvania-v-hursey-minn-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack