5 Or. 46 | Or. | 1873
By the Court,
The instruction of the court below, as to the effect of the levy of the attachment upon the saw-mill, wo think was erroneous in this: If the mill in question was real property, and the belt in question was so attached thereto as to become a fixture, the sheriff acquired no special ownership in the mill by virtue of a levy made in the manner in which this was made. The only effect of such a levy was to create a lien upon the real property in favor of the party suing out the attachment, from the time of the levy. (Civ. Code, § 149.) In fact, if the saw-mill was real property, and the belt a fixture, it was not the subject of larceny. But, on the other hand, if the belt had become personal property by reason of being detached from the mill, such was insufficient to create a special property in the sheriff, for the reason that it was not taken into his custody. Section 147, subdivision 2 of the Code, provides that “ personal prop
It is ordered that the judgment of the court below be reversed.
