Case Name: Oliver Dingman vs. Stiles Raymond
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1881-04-26
Citations: 27 Minn. 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: Oliver Dingman vs. Stiles Raymond.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Oliver Dingman vs. Stiles Raymond.
April 26, 1881.
Exemption from Execution — “ Buggy.” — A “ buggy ” being “ a single-seated, one-borsc, covered vehicle or pleasure carriage, designed and adapted for carrying persons only,” and as such used by the owner, is not exempt from execution as a “wagon.”
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Goodhue county, Crosby, J., presiding, on appeal from justice court, in an action by plaintiff to recover possession of a buggy, taken under execution by defendant as constable.
F. W. Hoyt, for appellant.
Wilson é Skillman, for respondent.

Opinion:
Berry, J.
The stipulation of the parties and the findings of the district court, with reference to the thing in controversy, are "that said buggy is a single-seated, one-horse, covered vehicle or pleasure carriage, designed and adapted for carrying persons only, and as such was used by said plaintiff; and the same was the only buggy or wagon owned •by plaintiff at the time of said levy." Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 310, exempts from sale on execution "one wagon, cart, or dray, one sleigh, two plows, one drag, and other farming utensils not exceeding $300 in value." I am of opinion that this does not cover a buggy like that in question, which is evidently what is popularly known and designated as a top or covered buggy or phaeton. Such a buggy is not a wagon, any more than it is a cart or dray, for what seems to me to be a plain, simple, and conclusive reason, viz.: that "wagon" is not the name or a name by which such buggy is designated, described or referred to in common acceptation.