Taylor v. Benningfield

(after stating the facts as above.) The court’s conclusion of law is assailed “that all of said cotton was legally in the possession of the said Degan at the time of the levy” of the attachment writ. Under the facts the question is, Was the levy of the attachment writ made in accordance with the provisions of the statutes in such cases made and provided?

The mere fact that the officer did not know that the claimant owned an undivided half, interest in the cotton, nor that he had and held the receipts or certificates, does not render the levy effective. For if the appellant was entitled to the…