Cited by

Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 383 , .

Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , ; Bausman v. Tilley, 46 Minn. 66 , ; State v. Madigan, 66 Minn. 10 , .” Stai v. Selden, 87 Minn. 271 , ; First State Bank of Montgomery v. Schatz, 104 Minn. 425 , ; Perkins v. Gibbs, 108 Minn. 151 , ; Viers v. Perry, 112 Minn. 348 , 127 N.

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , ; State v. Madigan, 66 Minn. 10 , ; Stai v. Selden, 87 Minn. 271, 275 , ; First State Bank v. Schatz, 104 Minn. 425 , .

Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , ; Finance Co. of Pa.

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , , and numerous subsequent cases, the order must be, and is, affirmed.

King v. Remington was followed in First National Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , , in which it was held that an assignor, who had made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors, had such a reversionary interest in the assigned estate as to entitle him to move to dissolve an attachment levied thereon.

Where the affidavit for the attachment and the affidavits in opposition thereto are “such as might reasonably lead different minds to opposite conclusions as to the fact in question, and, there being no clear preponderance of proof opposed to the decision of the court below, it should not be reversed.” Dickinson, J., in First National Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , .

King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, 30, 32 , ; Kinney v. Sharvey, *393 48 Minn. 98 , ; First National Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 383 , ; Atwater v. Manchester Savings Bank, 45 Minn. 344 , .

Bank of Winona v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , ; Bausman v. Tilley, 46 Minn. 66 , ; State v. Madigan, 66 Minn. 10 , .

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , .

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , .

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , .

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , ), which there certainly is not.

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , ( 37 N. W. Rep.

Bank v. Randall, 38 Minn. 382 , ( 37 N. W. Rep.