Reeves & Co. v. Sebern
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Benton District Court. The plaintiffs, wbo were creditors of the firm of Kirkpatrick & Haworth,' claimed the goods in controversy by virtue of a purchase thereof from the said firm. The defendant, as sheriff, claimed the same goods by virtue of a subsequent levy thereon, under an execution in favor of Hughes, Adams & Co., against Kirkpatrick & Haworth.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton District Court. The plaintiffs, wbo were creditors of the firm of Kirkpatrick & Haworth,' claimed the goods in controversy by virtue of a purchase thereof from the said firm. The defendant, as sheriff, claimed the same goods by virtue of a subsequent levy thereon, under an execution in favor of Hughes, Adams & Co., against Kirkpatrick & Haworth. The cause was referred to W. C. Connell, Esq., referee, who reported separately his conclusions of law and of fact. His finding being for the plaintiffs, the defendant excepted thereto, and these exceptions being overruled and…
1Opinion of the CourtDillon, J.
I. The real parties in interest in this contest are the plaintiffs and Hughes, Adams & Co., whose execution against Kirkpatrick & Haworth, the defendant, Sebern, as sheriff, levied upon the goods in controversy. The plaintiffs certainly, and probably Hughes, Adams & Co., were non-residents, and acted through their agents and attorneys.
Traer & Co. acted for the plaintiffs, and on the 29th of March, 1862, they made, as agents for the plain tiffs (as will be more fully alluded to in another part of this opinion), the alleged contract with Kirkpatrick (the successor of Kirkpatrick & Haworth,) for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Love v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Florida · 1851
- Ray v. BirdseyeCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- MacGregor v. MacGregorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Hotchkiss v. M'VickarNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Furlong v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ware v. Delahaye & PurdySupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Lathrop v. BrownSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Claude Banta, Inc. v. Wilmington Suburban Water Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1946
- Persse v. Atlantic-Pacific Railway Tunnel Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1894
- Persse v. Atlantic-Pacific Railway Tunnel Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1894