Dingman v. Raymond

8 N.W. 597, 27 Minn. 507, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 38
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 26, 1881·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Berry, J.

The stipulation of the parties and the findings of the district court, with reference to the thing in controversy, are “that said buggy is a single-seated, one-horse, covered vehicle or pleasure carriage, designed and adapted for carrying persons only, and as such was used by said plaintiff; and the same was the only buggy or wagon owned •by plaintiff at the time of said levy.” Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 310, exempts from sale on execution “one wagon, cart, or dray, one sleigh, two plows, one drag, and other farming utensils * * * not exceeding $300 in value.” I am of opinion that this does not cover a buggy like that in question, which is evidently what is popularly known and designated as a top or covered buggy or phaeton. Such a buggy is not a wagon, any more than it is a cart or dray, for what seems to me to be a plain, simple, and conclusive reason, viz.: that “wagon” is not the name or a name by which such buggy is designated, described or referred to in common acceptation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dingman v. Raymond, 8 N.W. 597, 27 Minn. 507, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 38 (Mich. 1881).

8 N.W. 597 (Dingman v. Raymond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Northwestern College of Speech Arts, Inc.
258 N.W. 1 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Allen v. Coates
11 N.W. 132 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1882)