Legal Opinion

Westinghouse Co. v. McGrath

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided July 11, 1906PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Crawford District Court.— Hon. P. M. Powers, Judge. ■ Action in replevin resulted in a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.—

1Opinion of the Court

Ladd, J.—

At the time of the service of the writ of replevin the threshing outfit in controversy was in possession *227of the defendant McGrath, as constable, by virtue of levies thereon of a writ of execution-and of a writ of attachment, under which his interest in the property amounted to $404.54, considerable less than its value. 'The statutory notice of ownership had been served, and it was made to appear by stipulation that one A. A. Kuhnes purchased said outfit of the plaintiff, August 12, 1901, and, to secure payment of the $600 of the purchase price, with his wife and L. V. Kuhnes executed…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Barrett v. FischSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
  2. Muir v. BlakeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
  3. Plano Manufacturing Co. v. GriffithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
  4. Warner v. WilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
  5. Ormsby Bros. v. NolanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Simon Casady & Co. v. German Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  2. Hauseman Motor Company v. NapierellaCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
  3. Summer Thomas v. LawlerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
  4. First National Bank v. MaxwellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
  5. Iowa Savings Bank v. GrahamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API