Legal Opinion

Hannan v. Connett

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 1897No. 1234PublishedCited by 6 opinions

jError to the District Court of Arapahoe County.

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, J.

This was an action in trover, wherein plaintiff sought to recover damages for the seizure and sale under attachment and judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff’s husband, of certain furniture, clothing and household goods alleged to have been the sole property of plaintiff. Yerdict and judgment were in favor of plaintiff, and defendant prosecutes an appeal.

The rule is well settled in this state, that when the property of another is unlawfully seized under a writ of attachment, the owner is not confined in his remedy to intervention in the attachment. He may intervene if he so…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Schluter v. JacobsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
  2. Sylvester v. CraigSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
  3. John Mouat Lumber Co. v. WilmoreSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
  4. Wilde v. RawlesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
  5. Carpenter v. InnesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Nisbet v. Federal Title & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
  2. El Paso County Bank v. Charles R. Milisen & Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. Beaman v. StewartColorado Court of Appeals · 1903
  4. Ruscitti v. SackheimColorado Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Montgomery v. KirkseyArizona Supreme Court · 1925

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API