Harthouse v. Rikers

The Superior Court of New York City

Harthouse v. Rikers

1 Duer 606

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 23, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1 Duer 606 (Harthouse v. Rikers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harthouse v. Rikers, 1 Duer 606 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Bosworth, J.

(On consultation with all the other judges of the court.) A team is “ two or more horses, oxen, or other beasts, harnessed together to the same vehicle for drawing, as to a coach, chariot, wagon, cart, sled, sleigh, and the like.— Webster’s Die., unabridged. Team-work is “work done®by a team, as distinguished from personal labor.”—Id.

The object of exempting the team, of a house-holder, was doubtless to enable him to do team-work. Horses, without harness or vehicle, would be of but little service relatively. Morse v. Keyes, 6 How. P. R. 18, 21, concedes that a “ harness” is within the meaning of the word team, but not the [607]*607vehicle to which the team may he harnessed. This concession seems to be a consequence of the definition given by the court of the word “ team.” The court said: “ A team is said to be two or more horses or oxen harnessed together.” I think Webster’s definition better accords with the common understanding of the meaning of the word.

However inartificial the expression may be, yet the phrase, “ a one-horse team,” is often used, and expresses a clear idea to the common mind. Unless the word “ team,” as used in the act of 1842, ch. 157, includes that, then, a single horse, harness, and cart, would not be exempt, though used together by a house-holder as a team, to do team-work, and though necessary for the support of his family.

I think a team, within the meaning of that act, means horses or oxen harnessed to a vehicle, and includes the three, and that though there be but a horse, harness,' and cart, instead of two horses, harness, and a wagon, they are exempt from execution, if of less value than' $150, and are necessary for the owner’s support, he* being a house-holder, or having a family for which he provides.

Under a contrary construction, the act, so far as it exempts a team, would have practically no application to this city. The “ team” of a carman, would not be a team within the meaning of the act.

I think it is exempt from execution, and the motion for a receiver, and that the cart of the plaintiff be delivered to such receiver, is denied. (Vide Hutchinson v. Chamberlin, 11 Leg. Ob. 248.)

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

Bosworth, J.

(On consultation with all the other judges of the court.) A team is “ two or more horses, oxen, or other beasts, harnessed together to the same vehicle for drawing, as to a coach, chariot, wagon, cart, sled, sleigh, and the like.— Webster’s Die., unabridged. Team-work is “work done®by a team, as distinguished from personal labor.”—Id.

The object of exempting the team, of a house-holder, was doubtless to enable him to do team-work. Horses, without harness or vehicle, would be of but little service relatively. Morse v. Keyes, 6 How. P. R. 18, 21, concedes that a “ harness” is within the meaning of the word team, but not the [607]*607vehicle to which the team may he harnessed. This concession seems to be a consequence of the definition given by the court of the word “ team.” The court said: “ A team is said to be two or more horses or oxen harnessed together.” I think Webster’s definition better accords with the common understanding of the meaning of the word.

However inartificial the expression may be, yet the phrase, “ a one-horse team,” is often used, and expresses a clear idea to the common mind. Unless the word “ team,” as used in the act of 1842, ch. 157, includes that, then, a single horse, harness, and cart, would not be exempt, though used together by a house-holder as a team, to do team-work, and though necessary for the support of his family.

I think a team, within the meaning of that act, means horses or oxen harnessed to a vehicle, and includes the three, and that though there be but a horse, harness,' and cart, instead of two horses, harness, and a wagon, they are exempt from execution, if of less value than' $150, and are necessary for the owner’s support, he* being a house-holder, or having a family for which he provides.

Under a contrary construction, the act, so far as it exempts a team, would have practically no application to this city. The “ team” of a carman, would not be a team within the meaning of the act.

I think it is exempt from execution, and the motion for a receiver, and that the cart of the plaintiff be delivered to such receiver, is denied. (Vide Hutchinson v. Chamberlin, 11 Leg. Ob. 248.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Duer 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harthouse-v-rikers-nysuperctnyc-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack