Abrahams v. Bartlet
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Des Moines District Court. Defendant moved to “quash the attachment issued and levied upon property, for the reason that he was in the actual naval service of the United States.” The writ was issued and served September 2,1863. The motion was sustained “to the extent of ordering the property released,” and from this order plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
Wright, Ch. J.
1. Attachment: soldier. Defendant was appointed acting master in the navy of the United States in June, 1863, and at once accepted the same and entered upon his duties. The question to be determined is whether, under the laws of this State, he falls within the class of soldiers whose property, it is declared, shall be released when seized by writ of attachment.
*514The language of the statute under consideration is, that any property of any soldiers in the actual military service of the United States, levied upon or held by a writ of attachment, issued from the courts of this State,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pancoast v. Travelers InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Schroeder v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street & Electric Ry. EmployeesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1922
- Schroeder v. Amalgamated Ass'n. of Street and Electric Ry. EmployeesLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1921