Rasure v. Hart
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Harvey Eistrict Court. Rasure appeals from an order of the district judge, at chambers, made 29th July 1875, refusing to discharge certain personal property seized in attachment at the suit of Hart. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. claimed that the statute exempts $500 worth of “household furniture,” without regard to the kind, or the purpose for which it is used.
Read the full summary
Error from Harvey Eistrict Court. Rasure appeals from an order of the district judge, at chambers, made 29th July 1875, refusing to discharge certain personal property seized in attachment at the suit of Hart. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. claimed that the statute exempts $500 worth of “household furniture,” without regard to the kind, or the purpose for which it is used. Gen. Stat. 473, §3, subdiv. 4; 11 Allen, 582. The true construction of our exemption-law is, that the head of the family is entitled to hold as exempt, certain specific and enumerated articles of household…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
The defendant in error brought this action in the court below against the plaintiff in error on a promissory note, and procured an order of attachment upon the sixth, seventh, and eighth statutory grounds, which order of attachment was levied on lot 10, in block 43, in the city of Newton, and also upon certain personal property. Afterward, the plaintiff in error moved to dissolve and discharge the attachment, first, because the facts stated in the •affidavit upon which the attachment was issued were not true, and second, because all of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Nohinek v. LogsdonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1981
- Williams v. VincentSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- Rockwood v. Estate of St. JohnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1900
- Putnam Investment Co. v. TitusSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
- Council of Hamtramck v. Hamtramck City ClerkMichigan Supreme Court · 1938