Hicks v. Mendenhall
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Philip G. Hubbard, one of the defendants in this action, commenced an action in the district court for Hennepin county against the plaintiff in this action, to recover the possession of certain specific personal property. Instead of indorsing a requisition to take the property on the affidavit as required by the act of March 6,1868, he procured a writ from the clerk of said court, as provided by statute before the act of March 6, 1868, went into effect.
Read the full summary
Philip G. Hubbard, one of the defendants in this action, commenced an action in the district court for Hennepin county against the plaintiff in this action, to recover the possession of certain specific personal property. Instead of indorsing a requisition to take the property on the affidavit as required by the act of March 6,1868, he procured a writ from the clerk of said court, as provided by statute before the act of March 6, 1868, went into effect. The writ issued to the coroner of said county, and he took possession of the property. During the three days which the coroner held the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Ripley, Ch. J.
Hubbard commenced an action against Hicks, sheriff of Hennepin county, to recover possession of certain specific personal property, and instituted proceedings conformably to Gen. Stat. ch. 66, sec. 112 to 117, to obtain the immediate delivery of the same, in ignorance of the provisions of ch. 76 of laws of 1868, whereby said secs. *477115, 116 and 117, are repealed, and sec. 114 so amended as to restore the practice as it was before the General Statutes were adopted. Castle vs. Thomas, 16 Minn. 490.
The sheriff being a party, the writ in this case was directed to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jacoby v. DrewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866
- Castle v. ThomasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bellinger v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1894