Coey v. Cleghorn

Citations

• 10 Idaho 166
• 79 P. 72
• 109 Am. St. Rep. 199
• 1904 Ida. LEXIS 46

Syllabus

<p>Attachment — Motion to Dissolve Should be Sustained — Disclaimer of Ownership not a Bar to a Future Claim of Ownership.</p> <p>1. Where it is shown that a party resides upon an Indian reservation in the state, and an attachment is levied upon his property situate upon such reservation, a claim that he is not a resident of the state must fail.</p> <p>2. Where it is shown that an attachment was levied upon certain personal property exempt by law from seizure under an attachment or execution proceeding, and at the time the levy was made the attached party disclaimed ownership, thereafter the attachment is discharged on motion and a second writ of attachment is issued and levied on- all or part of the property originally levied upon, and at the second levy the property is elaiméd under the exemption laws of the state. Held, that under the facts in the case his first disclaimer did not waive his right to claim under the exemption laws.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.)</p>