Calhoun v. Knight
CALHOUN v. KNIGHT
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lawrence F. Terry (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Terry
Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J., concurring.
We think the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment. The statute exempts from forced sale, “ two horses, oxen, or mules, by which a cartman, teamster, or other laborer, habitually earns his living.”
It is not shown that the plaintiff is one of the persons mentioned in the statute, or that he habitually earned his living by the use of the animals in question.
Judgment reversed.
Cited by
- National Lumber Co. v. Tejunga Valley Rock Co. Civ. No. 1356. · 1913-09-20