Gamble v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry. Tried before the Hon. Henry D. Clayton. This was an action by Reynolds against Gamble, in the court below, to recover damages for the conversion of a mule by the said Gamble. The facts were as follows: Reynolds was head of a family, and owned two mules only and no horse or pair of oxen.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry. Tried before the Hon. Henry D. Clayton. This was an action by Reynolds against Gamble, in the court below, to recover damages for the conversion of a mule by the said Gamble. The facts were as follows: Reynolds was head of a family, and owned two mules only and no horse or pair of oxen. There were sundry judgments in a justice’s court against him, upon which executions had been issued, and were levied on 20th August, 1866, on the mare mule “ Kit.” On the same day, 20th August, 1866, a certain execution against-said Reynolds, was issued upon a judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtJudge, J.
The appellee was entitled to have exempted from levy and sale under execution, “ one work horse or mule, or one pair of oxen.” It does not appear that he *238bad a horse, nor a pair of oxen, but be bad owned two mules, one of wbicb be disposed of before tbe levy, in payment of executions against him from a justice’s court; so that be owned, at tbe time, but tbe mule levied on. Tbe appellee, therefore, was not in a condition to elect which of the two mules be would retain as exempt from tbe levy, even tbougb tbe executions were bens upon both. Tbe adjudications of tbis court heretofore made, we…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Simpson v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Ross v. HannahSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Calloway v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Cook v. BaineSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861