Case ID: ri_21/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The following cases, not heretofore reported, are, on account of the importance of the points determined, reported at this time. — Reporter.
    Bessie Mills vs. Frank A. Nichols.
    PROVIDENCE
    — NOVEMBER 30, 1896.
    Present : Matteson, 0. J., Stiness and Tillinghast, JJ.
    
    (1) Housekeeper. Household Furniture. Exemptions from Attachment.
    
    Household furniture that is stored, and belonging to a person who is not a housekeeper, is not exempt from attachment.
    Trover for conversion of household furniture. Heard on defendant’s petition for a new trial.
    
      Harry C. Curtis, for plaintiff.
    
      Albert D. Bean, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The testimony shows that the furniture which is the subject of this suit was stored at the time of the attachment in the suit of Howes v. Mills, and that the plaintiff was not a housekeeper and had not been for a year and a half prior to the time the attachment was made. This being so, we are of the opinion that the furniture was not exempt from attachment on the ground that the plaintiff was a housekeeper.

Defendant’s petition for a new trial granted, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division.