Harris v. Boggs
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR to the Wayne Circuit Court. Replevin. Pleas, 1. Property in one W. Harris; 2. Property in the defendant; 3. That by virtue of a distress warrant issued by Oliver T. Jones, a justice of the peace, &c., directed to the defendant, a constable, &c., against one W. Harris, (setting out the substance of the warrant,) — the defendant distrained the goods specified in the declaration on the demised premises for rent, &c.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Wayne Circuit Court. Replevin. Pleas, 1. Property in one W. Harris; 2. Property in the defendant; 3. That by virtue of a distress warrant issued by Oliver T. Jones, a justice of the peace, &c., directed to the defendant, a constable, &c., against one W. Harris, (setting out the substance of the warrant,) — the defendant distrained the goods specified in the declaration on the demised premises for rent, &c. The defendant also made cognizance, to which there were several pleas, but it is unnecessary to set them out as no opinion respecting them was expressed by the Court.…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
The first error assigned is, that the demurrer to the replication to the defendant’s third plea was improperly sustained. The 12th section of the act regulating distress for rent, R. S. 1838, p. 472, exempts from distress, amongst other things, property deposited with a tavernkeeper “in the usual course of business.” Upon the construction of that statute depends the sufficiency of the replication. By a deposite with a tavernkeeper “ in the usual course of business,” we understand a deposite of goods with him, by a guest, for safe-keeping. In the course of an innkeeper’s business, no other…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harris v. M'FaddinIndiana Supreme Court · 1827