Rule v. Bolles
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Union: James A. Fee, Judge. This is an action by Eliza Rule to recover the possession of fifty-seven head of horses from J. T. Bolles. The complaint is in the usual form. The defendant, who was the sheriff of Union County, justifies the taking and detention of the property in question by alleging that it was seized by him as the property of Robert S. Rule, the husband of the plaintiff, under a writ of attachment issued in an action against him by one Horner.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union: James A. Fee, Judge. This is an action by Eliza Rule to recover the possession of fifty-seven head of horses from J. T. Bolles. The complaint is in the usual form. The defendant, who was the sheriff of Union County, justifies the taking and detention of the property in question by alleging that it was seized by him as the property of Robert S. Rule, the husband of the plaintiff, under a writ of attachment issued in an action against him by one Horner. The reply puts in issue the allegation of ownership in the answer, and upon the issues thus made the cause was tried. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Mr.
Chief Justice Bean.
1. The record contains numerous assignments of error, but none of them are sufficient, in our opinion, to require a reversal of the judgment. It is claimed that *370the court erred in admitting in evidence a certified copy of the record of the brand recorded by plaintiff, for the reason that the ownership of a brand is no evidence of ownership of stock branded therewith. But the record shows it was not admitted for such purpose, but only as one of the circumstances tending to show a change of possession of the horses so branded, and for that purpose, under the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wyatt v. WyattOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- M. E. Smith & Co. v. KimbleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917
- Western Mining Supply Co. v. QuinnMontana Supreme Court · 1909