Dennis v. Snell
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action against the defendant, as sheriff, for taking and selling property on execution alleged to be exempt. The complaint averred that the defendant was sheriff of Montgomery county ; that, in May, 1864, by his deputy, he took away and converted certain property of the plaintiff, of the value of $232 ; that the plaintiff was a householder, and had a family for which he provided, and that said property was his team, used in their support.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action against the defendant, as sheriff, for taking and selling property on execution alleged to be exempt. The complaint averred that the defendant was sheriff of Montgomery county ; that, in May, 1864, by his deputy, he took away and converted certain property of the plaintiff, of the value of $232 ; that the plaintiff was a householder, and had a family for which he provided, and that said property was his team, used in their support. The answer, after denying most of the allegations of the complaint, for further answer, justified the taking hy virtue of an execution issued to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
James, J.
The motion for a.nonsuit was properly denied. It was made clearly to appear that the property which the defendant took and sold was exempt from levy and sale on execution. I cannot find any thing in the case, on which to sustain the other ground for nonsuit. If it was based on the idea that the execution contained a direction excepting exempt property from its operation, that fact should have appeared in the case, either by statement, or a copy of the writ set forth, in order to raise the point on appeal. In the absence of all evidence of such exception, the court cannot…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Barney Ex Rel. Woodhull v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Bedell v. . CarllNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Sands v. St. JohnNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Hendricks v. DeckerNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Phincle v. VaughanNew York Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by2 opinions
- Denn v. PetersOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Krause v. HerbertOregon Supreme Court · 1888