Blumaur-Frank Drug Co. v. Branstetter
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Ada County. The affidavit and notice of sale, under which the sheriff acted in taking possession of the drug stock in controversy, was competent and sufficient authority. It'is a statutory remedy given to the mortgagee of chattels by the Revised Statutes, sections-3390 and 3391, and upon receipt of such notice and affidavit it is mandatory upon the sheriff to act.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Ada County. The affidavit and notice of sale, under which the sheriff acted in taking possession of the drug stock in controversy, was competent and sufficient authority. It'is a statutory remedy given to the mortgagee of chattels by the Revised Statutes, sections-3390 and 3391, and upon receipt of such notice and affidavit it is mandatory upon the sheriff to act. (Rev. Stats., see. 3393.) A sheriff is ministerial officer, and has no right when he receives process regular on its face, to go back of it and raise the-question of its validity, nor to concern himself…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, C. J.
On the fifth day of March, 1893, W. II. Ridenbaugh sold to T. D. Farrer and M. J. Rounseville, of the 'firm of T. D. Farrer & Co., a stock of drugs and fixtures then being and situated in the store building of the said Ridenbaugh, 'in Boise City, Idaho, for the sum of $5,000, and delivered same to said firm. In payment for said stock, said Ridenbaugh took 'the note of said firm for said sum, and, to secure the same, took ■a chattel mortgage on said stock of drugs and fixtures in said ■store. Thereafter, on the seventh day of August, 1893, said T. D. Farrer & Co., having in the meantime paid…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Robinson v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- McConnell v. LangdonIdaho Supreme Court · 1891
- Lewiston National Bank v. MartinIdaho Supreme Court · 1890
- Jewett v. SundbackSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Dusy v. HelmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Price v. PaceIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Fort v. KremerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917