Case ID: ny-sup-ct_12/html/0341-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Boaedman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN R. COGSDILL, Respondent, v. ROBERT BROWN, Appellant.
    
      Articles exempt from execution— Chapter 134 0/1859 — meaning of word “ team” in.
    
    
      A single horse and his harness are a “ team ” within the meaning of section 23 of 3 Revised Statutes (5th ed.), 646, as amended by chapter 134 of 1859, and, as such, entitled to the exemption from execution thereby created. (Wilcox v. Hawley, 31 N. Y., 648; Smith v. Slade, 57 Barb., 637; Lains v. Prosser, 32.id., 290; Lockwood v. Tounglove, 27 id., 505.)
    Even though on the day of the levy the plaintiff had no use for the horse, and did not then know when or how he would next make the horse useful or necessary, it was still exempt from execution, in the discretion of the owner. He had the right to retain the property and find use for it.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff, entered upon tbe report of a referee. "
    
      F. A. Durkee, for appellant. S. G. Millard, for respondent.
   Opinion by

Boaedman, J.

Present — Leaened, P. J., Boaedman and James, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, witli costs.