Pinkus v. Bamberger, Bloom & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Decatur. Tried before the Hon. Wm. H. Simpson. The appellees in this case, several mercantile partnerships, sued out attachments against Isaac Pinkus, a merchant doing business at Decatur under the name of I. Pinkus & Co.; and their attachments were levied on the same stock of goods. These several attachments were levied outlie 5th-7th March, 1890, and Pinkus filed with the sheriff, on the day last named, a claim of exemption to the goods.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Decatur. Tried before the Hon. Wm. H. Simpson. The appellees in this case, several mercantile partnerships, sued out attachments against Isaac Pinkus, a merchant doing business at Decatur under the name of I. Pinkus & Co.; and their attachments were levied on the same stock of goods. These several attachments were levied outlie 5th-7th March, 1890, and Pinkus filed with the sheriff, on the day last named, a claim of exemption to the goods. On the 3d March, prior to these several levies, an attachment had been sued out against said Pinkus by one Herbert…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, C. J.
The present suit grew out of the claim by Pinkus of statutory exemption of personal property of the value of one thousand dollars. — Code of 1886, § 2511.
The personal property of defendant, consisting of merchandise, was attached by his creditors, commencing on March 3, 1890, and continuing for two or more days. The attachment of Bamberger, Bloom & Co. was levied on March 5. This was the first levy made on the lot of merchandise which was found in an upper room, over Friedman’s business house. On March 7 — two days after this levy — Pinkus asserted his claim of exemptions in the attachment…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Holley v. CrowCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1978
- Florida Loan & Trust Co. v. CrabbSupreme Court of Florida · 1903
- First National Bank of Mobile v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
- First National Bank of Anniston v. LippmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Boylston v. Rankin & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.