Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

Fitzgerald v. McMurran

Fitzgerald v. McMurran
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 24, 1894 · Buck, Gilfillan, Sick, Took
57 Minn. 312; 59 N.W. 199; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 290 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Horton & Denegre, for appellant,, Jones & McMurran, for respondent,

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 1894, 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

Fitzgerald v. McMurran

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

Au attachment was issued against defendant’s property, on the ground that, as alleged, he was a nonresident. It was vacated upon affidavits from which the court below must have found that he was a resident. It is unnecessary to say more of the affidavits than that defendant was undoubtedly a resident up to January, 1893, and that from them the court might well conclude that at that time he left the state for a temporary business purpose, and without intending to abandon his residence here, and without intending to acquire or acquiring a residence elsewhere, and that, notwithstanding his absence, he continued a resident here.

Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 199.)

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.