Harthouse v. Rikers
The Superior Court of New York City
Judgment was had against the plaintiff for costs of the action. On proceedings supplementary to execution, the examination disclosed that he .was a public carman, was a house-holder, and had a family for which he provided, and had “ one horse, a "harness, and cart,” which were exempt from execution, provided they came within the proper definition, of the word “ team.”
Read the full summary
Judgment was had against the plaintiff for costs of the action. On proceedings supplementary to execution, the examination disclosed that he .was a public carman, was a house-holder, and had a family for which he provided, and had “ one horse, a "harness, and cart,” which were exempt from execution, provided they came within the proper definition, of the word “ team.” Defendant insisted that the cart was not exempt, moved for a receiver, and that the cart be delivered over to the receiver.
1Opinion of the CourtBosworth, J.
(On consultation with all the other judges of the court.) A team is “ two or more horses, oxen, or other beasts, harnessed together to the same vehicle for drawing, as to a coach, chariot, wagon, cart, sled, sleigh, and the like.— Webster’s Die., unabridged. Team-work is “work done®by a team, as distinguished from personal labor.”—Id.
The object of exempting the team, of a house-holder, was doubtless to enable him to do team-work. Horses, without harness or vehicle, would be of but little service relatively. Morse v. Keyes, 6 How. P. R. 18, 21, concedes that a “ harness” is within the meaning…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Wilcox v. . HawleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Mallory v. BerrySupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Ford v. JohnsonNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Van Buren v. LoperNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Fields v. MoulNew York Supreme Court · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.