Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Minge

• Decision Date: 03 May 1892
• Citation: 49 Minn. 454
• Parties: CITIZENS' NAT. BANK <I>vs.</I> OLE A. MINGE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

49 Minn. 454

CITIZENS' NAT. BANKvs.

OLE A. MINGE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Argued by appellant only, April 19, 1892.

Decided May 3, 1892.

Appeal by Citizens' National Bank of Fergus Falls, Minn., from an order of the District Court of Otter Tail County, Baxter, J., made October 5, 1891, dismissing its petition for a receiver of the property of Ole A. Minge.

On September 24, 1891, the Bank presented its petition in the District Court, stating that it held the promissory note of Ole A. Minge for $160.50, dated November 7, 1890, payable six months after its date, with interest, and that it held another promissory note of Minge for $108.03, dated July 23, 1891, payable three months after its date, with interest; that Minge was insolvent, and had on August 17, 1891, made and delivered to Ole Larson a mortgage on all the crops raised that year on two hundred and forty acres of land in that county, to secure the payment to Larson of $200, whereby Larson gained a preference over other creditors, and asked that Minge be adjudged to be insolvent, and that a receiver be appointed to take possession of his property and distribute the same pursuant to Laws 1881, ch. 148, as since amended. An order was granted directing

Minge to show cause on September 29, 1891, why such receiver should not be appointed. He and Larson both appeared and contested the application. Evidence was taken, and the court found the statement of the petition to be true, but further found that the note for $108.03 was not due, and the Bank had a surety on that note who was solvent; that the Bank did not hold past-due unsecured claims to the amount of $200; and dismissed the petition. From that order the Bank appealed to this court.

Mason & Hilton, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

Laws 1881, ch. 148, § 2, as amended by Laws 1889, ch. 30, provides that, whenever any insolvent debtor is guilty of certain specified acts of omission or commission, "any one or more of his creditors having claims against him, to the aggregate amount of at least $200, may petition the district court or a judge thereof, * * * asking that a receiver be appointed," etc.

1. To constitute a "claim" against the insolvent, within the meaning of this act, undoubtedly it must be a demand which is provable or allowable against his estate in the insolvency proceedings. But all that is required to qualify the petitioners to institute these proceedings is that they have claims that are...