{
  "id": 5337186,
  "name": "James W. Ramsey v. Elisha Barnabee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ramsey v. Barnabee",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "135",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 Ill. 135"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 2238,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "98992f98a77e29daabbb34372ca4a519e0ecbaaff00dbb2290f687b2bb474513",
    "simhash": "1:fbc2ec6ac83eafb5",
    "word_count": 382
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:19.170928+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James W. Ramsey v. Elisha Barnabee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis action was in trespass, to recover a penalty for levying upon and selling property exempted from levy and sale under the provisions of the statute. Among the property seized was a mower, and one point made against the verdict is, that the mower had what is called a \u201c reaper attachment,\u201d and both combined exceeded in value the amount the debtor could claim under the statute as being exempt from sale. Only the mower is claimed as exempt, and that alone does not exceed in value the amount of property which the statute declares shall be exempt from levy and sale. It is proven the machines can readily be separated, that the mower is a complete machine without the reaper attachment, and that one may be bought without the other.\nWhether the property claimed was suitable to the debtor\u2019s condition in life, was a question for the jury, and they having found that it was, no reason is perceived for disturbing the verdict.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Beach & Kinnear, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Sample & Torrence, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James W. Ramsey v. Elisha Barnabee.\nExemption\u2014whether part of machine is exempt. Where a mower, to which was attached what was called a \u201c reaper attachment,\u201d was levied on, and the whole exceeded in value the exemption the debtor could claim, but the mower alone did not, and the proof showed the machine could readily be separated, and that the mower was a complete machine without the attachment, and one could be bought without the other, it was held, that the mower alone might be selected as exempt.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. O. T. Reeves, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of trespass, by Elisha Barnabee against James W. Ramsey, to recover the penalty for the sale of exempt property under execution by the defendant, as constable. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a plea justifying the taking and sale of the property (a mower), as constable, under an execution against the plaintiff. The plaintiff replied, to the last plea, that the property was exempt from levy on execution. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment against the defendant, for $300.\nMessrs. Beach & Kinnear, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Sample & Torrence, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0135-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 136
}