Auby v. Rathbun
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Day county. Hon. A. W. Campbell, Judge. Action by Louis Auby against James G. Rathbun, sheriff, and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the sheriff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. To make a valid levy, it is not necessary that the sheriff take manual possession.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Day county. Hon. A. W. Campbell, Judge. Action by Louis Auby against James G. Rathbun, sheriff, and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the sheriff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. To make a valid levy, it is not necessary that the sheriff take manual possession. Barker v. Binninger, 14 N. Y. 270; State v. Cassidy, 4 S. D. 58, 54N. W. 928; Ray v. Harcourt, 19 Wend. 495; YanWyck v. Pine, 2 Hill, 666; Roth v. Wells, 29 N. Y. 471; Knapp v. Smith, 27 Id. 277; Gilkey v. Dickinson, 3 Hawks (N C.) 293; McCullough v. McClintock, 88 Ala. 597; Logsdon v.…
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.
-This was an action' against the sheriff of Day county for the value of certain personal property alleged to have been taken and sold by the sheriff, and which the plaintiff claimed was exempt from sale under execution, and' of which claim of exemptions the plaintiff had given said sheriff due notice. The principal question involved in this case is as to whether or not the plaintiff made demand of his exemptions within the time prescribed by the statute. Certain proceedings were taken by the sheriff on January 29, 1896, through his deputy, and also on the 10th day of February following,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Beekman v. LansingNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Davidson v. WaldronIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
- Havely v. LowryIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
- Westervelt v. PinckneyNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Crisfield v. NealSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lee v. DinsmoreSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917