Driggs v. Roth

Appellate Court of Illinois

Driggs v. Roth

97 Ill. App. 39, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 126

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedSeptember 11, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 Ill. App. 39 (Driggs v. Roth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Driggs v. Roth, 97 Ill. App. 39, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 126 (Ill. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wright

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit by the appellee against the appellant, a constable, to recover double the value of property seized under execution and claimed to be exempt from execution.

Appellee executed and delivered a schedule in. which, among other property, he described “ forty or fifty dollars worth of meat.” The appraisement showed more than that amount of meat. The officer requested the debtor to select forty or fifty dollars worth of meat, to which the latter objected, demanding all of it. Whereupon the officer set off to the debtor §62.57of the meat and took and sold the residue under the execution.' The court tried the case without a jury and found the issues against appellant, charged him with double the value of the property taken and gave judgment against him for §30.24, to reverse which he brings this appeal.

Persons scheduling property'for the purpose of claiming their exemptions under executions, should describe it so that the same can be identified by the appraisers and the officer. Here there was doubt, resulting from an indefinite description, concerning what the schedule covered. Reasonable minds might and would differ regarding the same. This suit being for a penalty, and the act of the officer not being unreasonable under the circumstances, we are unwilling to hold that he is subject to the penalty provided by the statute, and the judgment will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Wright

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit by the appellee against the appellant, a constable, to recover double the value of property seized under execution and claimed to be exempt from execution.

Appellee executed and delivered a schedule in. which, among other property, he described “ forty or fifty dollars worth of meat.” The appraisement showed more than that amount of meat. The officer requested the debtor to select forty or fifty dollars worth of meat, to which the latter objected, demanding all of it. Whereupon the officer set off to the debtor §62.57of the meat and took and sold the residue under the execution.' The court tried the case without a jury and found the issues against appellant, charged him with double the value of the property taken and gave judgment against him for §30.24, to reverse which he brings this appeal.

Persons scheduling property'for the purpose of claiming their exemptions under executions, should describe it so that the same can be identified by the appraisers and the officer. Here there was doubt, resulting from an indefinite description, concerning what the schedule covered. Reasonable minds might and would differ regarding the same. This suit being for a penalty, and the act of the officer not being unreasonable under the circumstances, we are unwilling to hold that he is subject to the penalty provided by the statute, and the judgment will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 Ill. App. 39, 1901 Ill. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driggs-v-roth-illappct-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack