
    Whitaker vs. Pergerson.
    An execution was levied on a horse, and a claim was interposed. In order to release the horse from the levy, the claimant became the transferee of the fi. fa., but before the assignment, he had the levy on the horse dismissed by order of the plaintiff. The defendant in fi. fa. had obtained this horse in exchange for a mule. After the assignment of the fi. fa., the claimant caused it to be levied on the mule, and the person who had received it in exchange interposed a claim:
    
      Held, that the mule was not subject to levy and sale under the fi. fa-Code, §3659 and citations.
    
      (a.) There being no contested facts involved in this case, which made it necessary to remand the case for another hearing in the justice’s court, there was no error in rendering a final judgment holding the property not subject. Code, §4067.
    Judgment affirmed.'
    March 10, 1885.
   Hall, Justice.

[A fi. fa. in favor of B. H. Brown & Brother, against Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hopson, was levied on a horse, which was claimed by P. O. Whitaker on behalf of his firm, P. H. Whitaker & Son. Whitaker purchased and took a transfer of the fi. fa., causing the plaintiff first to dismiss the levy on the horse. He then had’it levied on a mule, to which Pergerson interposed a claim. On the trial, it appeared that Pergerson had made an exchange with Hop-son, receiving the mule and giving Hopson the horse ; that Whitaker & Son obtained the horse from Hopson; and that it was worth more than the amount of thefi. fa. In the justice’s court, the mule was found subject. Claimant appealed to a jury, and after their verdict, carried the case to the superior court by certiorari. The court held that the mule was not subject, and rendered final judgments» that effect. Plaintiff excepted.]  