TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parker v. Canfield

Parker v. Canfield, 74 N.W. 296 (Mich. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 1, 1898
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
74 N.W. 296116 Mich. 941898 Mich. LEXIS 648
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Execution — Levy—Exemptions. It is the duty of an officer, who levies under an execution upon property which is exempt up to a certain value, to make an inventory, and allow the.defendant in execution to select his exemptions; and, not having done so, he is liable in trover for the part that he sells.
Summary
Error to Washtenaw; Kinne, J. Trover by Francis Parker against Lester Canfield. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings error. Defendant, a deputy sheriff, under an execution against plaintiff, levied upon certain property belonging to him. He was' a farmer. After the levy, defendant, of his own motion, released the levy as to part of the property, on the ground that it was exempt. He retained the levy on 106 bushels of barley situated in plaintiff’s barn. Plaintiff claimed this as exempt property. Defendant took it away, and sold it under his execution. Plaintiff thereupon brought this suit in trover. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for the value of the property.

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

Opinion of the Court — Grant

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

Grant, Cb J.

(after stating the facts). The instruction was correct. When an officer levies under his execution upon exempt property, it is his duty to make an inventory, and allow the defendant in execution to select his exemptions. Stilson v. Gibbs, 53 Mich. 280 ; Hutchinson v. Whitmore, 90 Mich. 255, 262 ( 30 Am. St. Rep. 431 ); Ostrander v. Packer, 35 Mich. 430 ; Town v. Elmore, 38 Mich. 305 .

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1906: 11928: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bostatter v. Hinchman220 N.W. 675 (Mich. 1928)
  2. Feenstra v. Tanis108 N.W. 674 (Mich. 1906)

Most recent

  1. Bostatter v. Hinchman220 N.W. 675 (Mich. 1928)
  2. Feenstra v. Tanis108 N.W. 674 (Mich. 1906)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Stilson v. Gibbs, 18 N.W. 815 (Mich. 1884) 26
Hutchinson v. Whitmore, 51 N.W. 451 (Mich. 1892) 11
Town v. Elmore, 38 Mich. 305 (1878) 6
Ostrander v. Packer, 35 Mich. 430 (1877) 4

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