Legal Opinion

Kansteiner v. Clyne

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1896PublishedCited by 6 opinions

APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. Even granting defendant’s contention ' that the property in «question was not exempt from execution against the plaintiffs husband, the ruling was still error. Under a claim of ownership the plaintiff had the actual possession of the property. As far as the proof goes, "it tends to show that defendant was, •and is, a naked trespasser who seized and detains the property without a shadow of justification.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. Even granting defendant’s contention ' that the property in «question was not exempt from execution against the plaintiffs husband, the ruling was still error. Under a claim of ownership the plaintiff had the actual possession of the property. As far as the proof goes, "it tends to show that defendant was, •and is, a naked trespasser who seized and detains the property without a shadow of justification. (Kane v. Desmond, 63 Cal. 464; Bickersiaff v. Doub, 19 Cal. 107.) No authorities cited on the point decided.

1Opinion of the CourtSulliyan, J.

This is a suit in replevin, brought to recover the possession of sixteen head of livestock (cattle), or their value, alleged to be $275, in case a recovery of the possession cannot be had, together with damages. The defendant admits the taking, and seeks to justify on the ground that Be, as constable, took said stock under and by virtue of an execution against the property of plaintiff’s husband. The judgment of the justice court was in favor of the defendant, and •an appeal was taken to the district court. The cause was tried *60in that court to a jury, and, at the close of plaintiff’s…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bank of Commerce, Ltd. v. BaldwinIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Kroetch v. Empire Mill Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Coulson v. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Keane v. Pittsburg Lead Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Colgrove v. Hayden Lake Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1925

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API