Nelson v. Nelson

(dissenting). — I dissent from the majority opinion for the following reasons:

First: Because it holds that Section 1675, Revised Statutes 1919, does not mean what I believe it plainly and unambiguously says and means, namely: , “Any person against whose property any execution or order of sale shall be issued” etc., may for good cause stated ■in a verified petition move the court to quash the exe cution. This verified petition was filed in the case, and stated, among other reasons for quashing the execution, that “he is the owner in fee simple of the following real estate” (then follows…