From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
J.F. Anderson Lumber Co. v. Myers
Minnesota Supreme Court
206 N.W. 2d 365, 296 Minn. 33 (1973)
Facts
Richard T. Leekley and his wife were the sole stockholders of Richard T. Leekley, Inc. (defendant) Leekley and his wife then formed a new corporation named Leekley’s, Inc. (Leekley’s), and they were the sole stockholders and officers of the new corporation. The two businesses were similar home-construction and home-remodeling companies. Following the incorporation of Leekley’s, Richard T. Leekley, Inc., transferred two trucks and equipment to Leekley’s for $1,700, and three employees from Richard T. Leekley, Inc., were hired to work at Leekley’s. Leekley’s did not acquire any of Richard T. Leekley, Inc.’s business contracts or debts. Prior those transactions, Richard T. Leekley, Inc., was insolvent for several years, and upon the transfer of assets, the company was dissolved with debts of around $40,000. J. F. Anderson Lumber., Co (plaintiff) sued and ultimately obtained judgment against Richard T. Leekley, Inc., for $24,652 for material bought for a project that J. F. Anderson had worked on and that was headed by Richard T. Leekley, Inc. Because Richard T. Leekley, Inc., was insolvent, J. F. Anderson argued that Leekley’s should be responsible for the judgment because the assets transferred to Leekley’s were transferred without adequate consideration. The trial court agreed with J. F. Anderson, and Richard T. Leekley, Inc., appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Olson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
