Saterlee v. Hickman

This was replevin by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, to recover certain personal property which had been seized by the plaintiff in error, as a constable, by virtue of a writ of attachment against Aloytus Hickman, the husband of the defendant in error.

As to the ownership of the property, whether it was in the plaintiff in replevin or in the defendant in attachment, the evidence was not conclusive.

The record of the proceedings in the attachment suit was excluded from evidence because the judgment did not provide that special execution issue against the attached property,…