Wilson v. Powers
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action by mortgagee to recover damages for the conversion of certain wheat. Defence that the wheat was taken and sold by defendant, by virtue of two executions against plaintiff’s mortgagor, issued and levied prior to the mortgage. At the trial in the district court for Wabasha county, Van Dyke, J., instructed the jury that the acts of the defendant, detailed in the opinion, constituted a valid and continuing levy, to which instruction the plaintiff excepted.
Read the full summary
Action by mortgagee to recover damages for the conversion of certain wheat. Defence that the wheat was taken and sold by defendant, by virtue of two executions against plaintiff’s mortgagor, issued and levied prior to the mortgage. At the trial in the district court for Wabasha county, Van Dyke, J., instructed the jury that the acts of the defendant, detailed in the opinion, constituted a valid and continuing levy, to which instruction the plaintiff excepted. The defendant had a verdict, a new trial was refused, and plaintiff appealed.'
1DissentMcMillan, C. J.
(Dissenting.) The only question presented for determination here is the validity of the levy made by the defendant, as against the plaintiff. There is no dispute as to the facts.
It is provided by § 271, ch. 66', Gen. Stat., that “Personal property capable of manual delivery shall be levied upon by the officer taking it into his custody.” It seems to mo there can be no doubt that the acts of the officer during his visit to Phillips, the defendant in the execution, on December 3, constituted a taking of the wheat in the granary into his possession and custody, and a valid levy thereon, unless…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beekman v. LansingNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Wood v. VanarsdaleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Mills v. CampSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
- Gallagher v. BishopWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Bond v. WilletNew York Court of Appeals · 1864