Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Hursey
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 1908, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- First State Bank v. Schatz (Minn. 1908)
- First National Bank v. Buchan (Minn. 1899)
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
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.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.