Bevitt v. Crandall
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Dane County. Bevitt, as constable, levied an execution against the property of Crandall upon a grain drill belonging to the latter; and Crandall brought his action in the circuit court to recover the property.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Dane County. Bevitt, as constable, levied an execution against the property of Crandall upon a grain drill belonging to the latter; and Crandall brought his action in the circuit court to recover the property. The court instructed the jury that “unless the proof showed that the plaintiff, when the levy was made, had more than $200 worth of farming utensils other than those enumerated in the law (sec. 81, ch. 134, R. S.), the property in question was exempt.” Under this instruction the jury found for the plaintiff, Crandall; and that the value of the drill was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
DixoN, 0. J.
The question in this case arises upon the construction of sec. 31, chap. 134, R. S., “ Of the *583exemption of Personal Property.” Subdivision 7 provides for the exemption of “ farming utensils,” among which “ one drag ” is named. The defendant in error had one drag besides the grain drill in controversy, which in farming operations is a substitute for the drag in putting in small grains. The farming utensils exempted by subdivision 7, are limited in value to fifty dollars. The grain drill was worth from eighty to eighty-five dollars, and therefore cannot be claimed as…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Jenkins v. McNallSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Wicker v. ComstockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Jensen v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Knapp v. BartlettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- Fullerton Lumber Co. v. CarstensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.