Tereau v. Madison
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 1986, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Supervised Voluntary Dissolution of Marich Construction Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Lenahan v. Landsberger (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Burkhard v. Barnes (Minn. 1926)
- Jandera v. Lakefield Farmers Union (Minn. 1921)
- Sweeney v. McMahon (Minn. 1920)
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 action to recover money upon contract. The plaintiff procured a writ of attachment. In his affidavit he alleged as grounds for the writ, that the defendant “has assigned, secreted, disposed of his property with intent to delay and defraud his creditors, and is about to dispose of the rest of his property, with the same intent.”
Under this writ the sheriff seized one gray mare belonging to the defendant; the defendant procured an order to show cause why the writ should not be vacated and the property released. Upon the hearing the matter was submitted upon affidavits filed by the defendant, traversing and putting in issue the allegations of the affidavit for the writ, counter affidavits of the plaintiff and the pleadings and files.
The court made ah order vacating the writ and dissolving the levy, from which order the plaintiff appealed.
Upon a motion to vacate a writ of attachment, based upon affidavits putting in issue the alleged facts upon which the writ was issued, the burden is upon the plaintiff to sustain the allegations of the original affiidavit, by competent evidence. Jones v. Swank, 51 Minn. 285, 53 N. W. 634. This the plaintiff failed to do. We are of the opinion the order of the district court was right.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.