Hughes v. Farrar
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On facts agreed. Trespass, for taking plaintiff’s horse. The defendant justifies the taking, and alleges that he, as sheriff, attached the horse by virtue of a writ, against the plaintiff, in his hands for service. It is agreed that, at the time of taking the horse, he was of the value of $150; that plaintiff owned no other horse; that no tender of any sum of money was made to plaintiff, at or before the time of taking.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Cutting, J.
The principal question presented, is, whether a horse of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, the property of a debtor, owning at the same time no working cattle or other horse, is exempted from attachment and execution under the twelfth clause of section 36, of c. 81, of R. S. of 1857, which provides, that, “ One pair of working cattle, or, instead thereof, one or two horses not exceeding in value one hundred dollars,” shall be so exempted, and, “if he has more than one pair of working cattle, or, if the two horses exceed in value one…
2Cited by17 opinions
- McDonald v. HoveySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Taylor v. BowkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Jenness v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1949
- Laidley v. Kline's Adm'rWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Blackwell v. HatchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.