Legal Opinion
Hoisington v. Huff
Supreme Court of Kansas
Decided July 15, 1880PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error from Dickinson District Court. Replevin, brought by Huff against Hoisington (constable) and another, to recover the possession of a certain mare claimed to be exempt. The facts are stated in the opinion. Trial by the court at the March Term, 1880, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here.
1Opinion of the Court
*380The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
This was an action in replevin, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error to recover one dun mare, eight years old, of the value of ninety dollars, and claimed to be exempt. The case was tried to the court without a jury. Special findings of fact were made, which are as follows:
“1. That the defendant George Ploisington was a duly appointed and qualified constable for Grant township in said county [Dickinson], about the time of the detention of the property in the plaintiff’s petition.
“2. That said property was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Greeno v. BarnardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rice v. NolanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Iowa Mutual Insurance v. ParrSupreme Court of Kansas · 1962
- State v. GoeringSupreme Court of Kansas · 1964
- Kroenert v. MeadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1898