Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/97

 James Winsley, and one for $82.60, in favor of Randall Bros.; that under and by virtue of said writs he seized the property in question as the property of plaintiff, to satisfy the judgments that might be rendered against the plaintiff herein, in the actions in which said writs of attachment were issued; that the action in favor of James Winsley was commenced in the district court of said county on November 25, 1887, and the attachment in that case was levied on November 26, 1887; that the action in favor of Randall Bros. was commenced in justice’s court in said county on December 5, 1887, and the attachment therein was levied the same day. Defendant further alleged that the debt due from plaintiff herein to James Winsley was incurred for property obtained by said plaintiff from said Winsley by false pretenses; that plaintiff falsely and fraudulently represented to Winsley that he had a large ranch, consisting of over 100 head of cattle, 200 tons of hay, and a number of head of horses, and other property far in excess of his liabilities and exemptions, and was solvent; that said Winsley relied upon said representations, but that the same were false, and were so known to be false by plaintiff when made. The same allegations were repeated as to Randall Bros. It was alleged as to both claims that when plaintiff received the goods from said parties he promised in each case to pay for said goods, without any intention of performing his said promises. The reply admitted the regularity of the attachment proceedings in each case, and admitted the levies, but alleged that plaintiff served upon defendant notice that he claimed all of said property as exempt from seizure under attachment, together with a duly verified schedule of his assets; that an appraisement was accordingly had of his said assets; and that the value thereof, as appraised, did not reach the limit of exemptions allowed by law; and that, after such appraisement was returned to defendant, plaintiff demanded said property so attached, and defendant refused to surrender the same. The reply denied the fraud and false pretenses as set up in the answer.

Subdivision 3, § 4995, Comp. Laws, gives, as one of the grounds of attachment in this state, “that the debt was incurred for property obtained under false pretenses.” Section 5139, Comp. Laws, reads as follows: “No exemptions, except the ab-