TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ostrander v. Packer

Henry Ostrander v. Lorenzo D. Packer

Ostrander v. Packer, 35 Mich. 430 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 16, 1877
Judges
Cooley, Other
Citations
35 Mich. 4301877 Mich. LEXIS 34
Headnotes
Statutory exemptions: Team-. Where a party is entitled to hold a team as exempt from execution, an officer, claiming that what the debtor has which will answer the designation is of greater value than the statute exempts, should levy on the whole and have it appraised, to give opportunity for the selection the statute contemplates, and he cannot lawfully levy upon and nold a horse of less value than the exemption allowed hy the statute, and which the debtor claims and is entitled to retain as exempt, though the debtor have other property of the same class.1
Summary
Error to Saginaw Circuit. This was replevin, brought by Packer to recover a horse, which Ostrander, as deputy sheriff, bad levied upon and taken by virtue of a writ of attachment against Packer. The horse was claimed by Packer to be exempt' from execution, and it was shown that he was engaged in a business which required the use of a team. The value of the horse was variously estimated by the witnesses at from one hundred to two hundred and fifty dollars, and it was shown that Packer also had at the time another horse and a harness. There was also evidence that the horse in question was a trotting horse and had previously been kept in training for that purpose. The judgment below was for the plaintiff, and defendant brought error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Cooley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Cooley, Ch. J.t

We think the circuit judge was correct in instructing the jury that on the undisputed facts of the case the plaintiff was entitled to recover. He was entitled to exemption for a team, and if the officer claimed that what he had which would answer the designation was of greater value than the *statute exemption, he should have levied on the whole and had it appraised, to give opportunity for the selection the statute provides for. This was not done, the officer erroneously believing no exemption was allowable.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The other justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1895: 11898: 11910: 11935: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McCausey v. Hoek124 N.W. 570 (Mich. 1910)
  2. Nolan v. City of Owensboro75 F.2d 375 (6th Cir. 1935)
  3. Boyle v. Walsh63 N.W. 435 (Mich. 1895)
  4. Parker v. Canfield74 N.W. 296 (Mich. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Nolan v. City of Owensboro75 F.2d 375 (6th Cir. 1935)
  2. McCausey v. Hoek124 N.W. 570 (Mich. 1910)
  3. Parker v. Canfield74 N.W. 296 (Mich. 1898)
  4. Boyle v. Walsh63 N.W. 435 (Mich. 1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list