Anderson v. Dever’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Relative to the claim to exemptions: We note that the claim to the corn and cotton seed was allowed by agreement of appellee. There then remained his claim to two work mules, one wagon and set of harness, and one-hay mower and rake. These last were sold during the pendency of the suit and the proceeds were in the hands of the sheriff. No claim was interposed to the property when the levy was made. It is contended that, because appellee failed to make claim to his exemptions as to the specific property at the time it was levied on in accordance with the statute (section 2142. of the Code of 1906), he is not now entitled to his exemptions out of the proceeds of sale. The live stock was sold by the sheriff under section 164 of the Code of 1906, shortly after the levy. The remaining* personal property, except the corn and cotton seed, was sold by agreement of the parties, the proceeds to remain subject to the result of the suit. Appellant, by his failure to claim the property when levied on did not lose his right to exemption. It is true that the statute (section 2142 of the Code of 1906) provides a plan for proceedings in relation to claiming and selecting* exempt property. “But appellant, as an exemptionist, is not confined to this remedy given by the statute. Moseley v. Anderson, 40 Miss. 49 . He was entitled in this case to claim the proceeds of the sale of the several items of property which he selected. We will not sustain his claim for the amount of the value of the prope”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Culpepper v. John B. Ellison & Sons