Dingman v. Raymond
This text of 8 N.W. 597 (Dingman v. Raymond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 N.W. 597, 27 Minn. 507, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingman-v-raymond-minn-1881.