Seabury v. Michaelis
This text of 119 N.W. 65 (Seabury v. Michaelis) 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.
Opinion
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered upon findings of fact and conclusions of law after trial by the court without a jury. The only question presented is whether the conclusions of law are sustained by the findings of fact.
The action involved the validity of a bulk sale of a stock of goods, which plaintiffs claimed was void as to creditors under section 3503, R. L. 1905-The judgment must be affirmed, under the rule of Schmitt v. Dahl, 88 Minn. 506, 93 N. W. 665, 67 L. R. A. 590, for the reason that it does not appear that plaintiffs were creditors at the time of the sale complained of, and the charge in the plaintiffs’ complaint that the sale was made to defraud creditors was found untrue by the trial court. The evidence is not returned, and no motion appears to have been made to amend the findings in the respect mentioned, and they must be deemed to be sustained by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
119 N.W. 65, 106 Minn. 544, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seabury-v-michaelis-minn-1909.