Conrad v. Marcotte
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1939, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Salscheider v. Holmes (Minn. 1939)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Prior to the passage of Laws 1876, c. 44, an assignment of personal property in trust for the benefit of creditors, accompanied with such delivery to the assignee as the nature of the property permitted, was not required to be in writing. ' This was so because the general authority of the owner of'property to dispose of the same for any lawful purpose ivas not qualified by any positive rule of law, making writing necessary to the validity of such assignments. Curtis v. Norris, 8 Pick. 280. The plaintiffs’ ■counsel is mistaken in his claim that Gen. St. c. 41, § 9,
Judgment affirmed.
This section is as follows:
“Every grant or assignment of any existing trust in goods or things in action, unless the same is in writing, subscribed by the party making the same, -or by his agent lawfully authorized, shall be void.”
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.