Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/96

 trict court denying the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was correct, and the same is affirmed. All concur.

, Plaintiff and Respondent, v., Defendant and Appellant.

1. Action to Recover Attached Property Claimed to be Exempt; Debt Incurred Under False Pretenses.

In an action of claim and delivery, brought against a sheriff, the defendant justified his seizure and detention of the property under two certain writs of attachment in his hands against the property of plaintiff; and, anticipating that plaintiff would claim such property exempt from seizure under the general exemption law of the state, defendant alleged, further, that the debts sought to be recovered in the actions in which the attachments were issued were debts incurred by plaintiff under false pretenses, setting forth such false pretenses. Held a good defense, under § 5139, Comp. Laws. Held, further, that the refusal of the court to allow defendant to prove the false pretenses as alleged was reversible error.

PPEAL from district court, Dickey county; Hon., Judge.

Action by Charles M. Taylor against Thomas C. Rice in claim and delivery. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Motion for new trial overruled, and defendant appeals.

E. P. Perry for Appellant; Messrs. Thomas & Davis of Counsel.

No brief or argument for respondent.

This was an action. known under our statute as claim and delivery, and was commenced December 9, 1887. Plaintiff claimed to be the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of certain personal property valued at $1,000, which he alleged defendant wrongfully detained after proper demand made. Defendant answered, in substance, that he was sheriff of Dickey county, Dakota territory; that as such sheriff he received for service two certain writs of attachment against the property of plaintiff, one for the sum of $94.65, in favor of