Minnesota Supreme Court, 1899

First National Bank v. Buchan

First National Bank v. Buchan
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 21, 1899 · Collins
76 Minn. 54; 78 N.W. 878; 1899 Minn. LEXIS 535 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

L. F. hammers, for appellant., Daniel Bohrer, 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 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

First National Bank v. Buchan

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

COLLINS, J.

Appeal from an order vacating and setting aside a writ of attachment and a levy thereunder, which writ was issued upon an affidavit in which it was averred that defendant had assigned, secreted and disposed of a portion of his property, and was about to assign, secrete and dispose of the balance thereof, with intent to delay and defraud his creditors. An examination of the affidavits used upon the hearing of the motion to vacate discloses a conflict of evidence as between the parties, and in such a case the determination of the court below is conclusive, unless there is a clear preponderance of evidence opposed to that determination. Finance Co. v. Hursey, 60 Minn. 17, 61 N. W. 672. Surely, the preponderance here was not in plaintiff’s favor.

Order affirmed.

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