Minnesota Supreme Court, 1910

Viers v. Perry

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 4, 1910

112 Minn. 348; 127 N.W. 1120; 1910 Minn. LEXIS 784 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

J. N.. Johnson, for appellant., Brown & Echstrom, 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 1921, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Stockhaus v. Lind (Minn. 1921)
Clarke & Simmons, Inc. v. Rule (Minn. 1921)
Hurni v. Johnson (Minn. 1920)
Minneapolis Gaslight Co. v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1913)

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal presents the sole question whether the trial court erred by its order granting the defendant’s motion to dissolve the *349writ of attachment herein. The motion was made and opposed upon conflicting affidavits, which show no clear preponderance of proof opposed to the decision of the trial court. The case, then, falls within the rule that the determination of a question of fact, on the hearing of a motion on affidavits, will not be reversed, if there be evidence reasonably tending to support it. First Nat. Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382, 37 N. W. 799; State v. Madigan, 66 Minn. 10, 68 N. W. 179; Stai v. Selden, 87 Minn. 271, 275, 92 N. W. 6; First State Bank v. Schatz, 104 Minn. 425, 116 N. W. 917.

Order affirmed.

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