Cronfeldt v. Arrol
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants, Charles F. Arrol and James H. Farrell, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kelly, J., made September 11, 1891, denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Aman Cornfeldt, was a tailor carrying on his trade at St. Paul, and owned and used in his business two sewing machines. Farrell was on April 2, 1891, a constable.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants, Charles F. Arrol and James H. Farrell, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kelly, J., made September 11, 1891, denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Aman Cornfeldt, was a tailor carrying on his trade at St. Paul, and owned and used in his business two sewing machines. Farrell was on April 2, 1891, a constable. Arrol on that day sued plaintiff in a Justice’s Court for $35 rent due for that month in advance, and obtained a writ of attachment and delivered it to Farrell for service. He attached and took away the two sewing machines. On the…
1Opinion of the CourtDicKINSon, J.
The defendant Farrell, a constable, under a writ of attachment issued in an action prosecuted by the defendant Arrol against the plaintiff, seized two sewing machines owned by the plaintiff. This is an action to recover damages for the taking of the property. The question to be considered is whether, under the circumstances shown by the evidence, the two machines may be deemed to have been exempt from attachment or execution by reason of their being within 1878 G. S. ch. 66, § 310, subd. 8, which exempts “ the tools and instruments of any mechanic, miner, or other person, used and kept for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lynd v. PicketSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- McCarthy v. NiskernSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Erickson v. Brookings CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by2 opinions
- Matteson v. MunroSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Cooper v. ScyocMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904