Selecman v. Kinnard
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Gass , Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. 'Wood, Judge. (1) “All goods and chattels not exempt by statute are liable to - be seized and sold upon execution.” Revised Statute, 1889, sec. 4915. (2) “The growing crops produced by annual planting and cultivation are chattels, and as such may be levied upon and sold under execution.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Gass , Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. 'Wood, Judge. (1) “All goods and chattels not exempt by statute are liable to - be seized and sold upon execution.” Revised Statute, 1889, sec. 4915. (2) “The growing crops produced by annual planting and cultivation are chattels, and as such may be levied upon and sold under execution.” Kelly’s Justice Practice, p. 157; Bindley v. Kelly, 42 Ind. 294; Preston v. Byan, 45 Mich. 174. (3) “An officer having an execution against one may lawfully enter the close of the debtor and cut down and seize and,«ell, as personal estate, corn and other…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This was a suit for an injunction. The undisputed evidence in the case shows that the plaintiff rented his farm to one Pearson for one year from March 1, 1892, for one-third of all the corn and oats and one-half of the flax and wheat raised thereon during said cropping year, which crops were to be harvested and gathered by Pearson. There was some pasture and meadow land for which Pearson agreed to pay plaintiff $39 in money.
On the twenty-eighth of June, 1892, the defendant, Metzgar, who had previously recovered judgment against Pearson before a justice of the peace, caused an execution to be…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Garth v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Smock v. SmockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Knox v. Hunt & PorterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Price v. RoetzellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Sanders v. OhlhausenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jenkins v. Missouri Farmers Ass'n, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1993
- Dunlap v. DunsethMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899