Harris Ice Cream Co. v. Hartsock

Citations

• 127 Miss. 271
• 90 So. 7

Syllabus

<p>1. AppEai, and Error. No corn-plaint that replevin was improper remedy where parties recognized validity of proceedings.</p> <p>Where a plaintiff in a judgment sued out an execution thereon and levied upon certain property claimed by the defendant to be exempt, and where the defendant in said judgment improperly filed a suit of replevin instead of a claim of exemption, and where the officer levying the execution demands and is furnished an indemnifying bond by the plaintiff in execution, and where, by agreement, the suit proceeds upon the indemnifying bond, and judgment is rendered thereon for defendant in execution, the rightfulness of the suing out of replevin against the constable cannot be heard on appeal, as it was waived by the agreement.</p> <p>3. Exemptions. Hxemption statute held to include unincorporated urban districts.</p> <p>Section 3147, Code of 1906, section 1833, Hemingway’s Code, giving exemptions to residents of cities, towns, and villages, is not applicable only to incorporated cities, towns, and villages, but applies to urban districts, though not incorporated, where such districts are in fact settled and inhabited as cities and towns. The intention of the legislature was to provide exemptions to a class not farmers, and the question as to what is a town or village is a question of fact to be determined as other questions of fact.</p>