History
  • No items yet
midpage
Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber Co.
25 Minn. 461
Minn.
1879
Check Treatment
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 *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.

Case Details

Case Name: Brown v. Minneapolis Lumber Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Jan 23, 1879
Citation: 25 Minn. 461
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.