Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Equal Protection Of The to Family Arrangement >> Exemption

Exemption

am, rep, co, st, property, ann, cal and law

EXEMPTION. The right given by law to a debtor to retain a portion of his property without its being liable to execution at the suit of a creditor, or to a distress for rent.

In genera], the sheriff may seize and sell all the property of a defendant whicti he can find, except such as Is exempted by the common law or by statute. The common law was very niggardly of these exceptions : it allowed -only the necessary wearing ap parel; and it was once holden that if a de fendant had two gowns the sheriff might sell one of them ; Comb. 356. But in mod ern times, with perhaps a prodigal liber ality, a considerable amount of property, both real and personal, is exempted from execution by the statutes o4 the several states ; 19 Am. L. Reg. 1; 4 So. L. Rev. N. S. 1; In re Radway, 3 Hughes 609, Fed. Cas. No. 11,523; Carlton v. Watts, 82 N. C. 212: Mapp v. Long, 62 Ga. 568 ; Singletary v. Singletary, 31 La. Ann. 374; Rutledge v. Rutledge, 8 Bax. (Tenn.) 33; Creath v. Dale, 69 Mo. 41; Vanderhorst v. Bacon, 38 Mich. 669, 31 Am. Rep. 328 ; Murphy v. Har ris, 77 Cal. 194, 19 Pac. 377 ; In re Robb, 99 Cal. 202, 33 Pac. 890, 37 Am. St. Rep. 48 ; Carter v. Davis, 6 Wash. 327, 33 Pac. 833; Bean v. Ins. Co., 54 Minn. 366, 56 N. W. Hamberger v. Marcus, 157 Pa. 133, 27 Atl. 681, 37 Am. St. Rep. 719; and there is now hardly a state or nation which has not by statute made certain exemptions designed as a protection for the family ; Woodward v. Murray, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 403; and such statutes are to be liberally construed; But ner v. Bowser, 104 Ind. 259, 3 N. E. 889; Kuntz v. Kinney, 33 Wis. 510; Good v. Fogg, 61 Ill. 449, 14 Am. Rep. 71; Carty v. Drew, 46 Vt. 346 ; Allison v. Brookshire, 38 Tex. 199; Seeley v. Gwillim, 40 Conn. 106. Some of the exemptions are the following: house hold furniture ; ToWns v. Pratt, 33 N. H. 345, 66 Am. Dec. 726 ; Tanner v: Billings, 18 Wis. 163, 86 Am. Dec. 755 ; Dunlap v. Edger ton, 30 Vt. 224; Haswell v. Parsons, 15 Cal. 266, 76 Am. Dec. 480 ; Heidenheimer v. Blumenkron, 56 Tex. 308 ; tools of trade ; Atwood v. De Forest, 19 Conn. 513; Enscoe v. Dunn, 44 Conn. 93, 26 Am. Rep. 430; Bos ton Belting Co. v. Ivens & Co., 28 La. Ann. 695 ; Wicker v. Comstock, 52 Wis. 315, 9 N. W. 25 ; work horses; Tishomingo Say. Inst. v. Young, 87 Miss. 473, 40 South. 9, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 693, 112 Am. St. Rep. 454, 6 Ann. Cas. 776 ; Forsyth v. Bower, 54 Cal. 639 ; Jaquith v. Scott, 63 N. H. 5, 56 Am. Rep. 476; Steele v. Lyford, 59 Vt. 230, 8 Atl. 736

(but this will not include high bred horses used for pleasure and to drive to and from business; Tishomingo Say. Inst. v. Young, 87 Miss. 473, 40 South. 9, 3 L. R. A. [N. S.) 693, 112 Am. St. Rep. 454, 6 Ann. Cas. 776) ; the interest of a legatee in lands, until the court has held it to be a charge on such, al though the legacy is given with a view that it shall be such a charge ; Hiscock v. Fulton, 63 Hun 624, 17 N. Y. Supp. 408; curtesy ini tiate ; Bruce v. Nicholson, 109 N. C. 202, 13 S. E. 790, 26 Am. St. Rep. 562 ; property held in trust; Mosher v. Neff, 33 Neb. 770, 51 N. W. 138; the bridge of a public corporation; Overton Bridge Co. v. Means, 33 Neb. 857, 51 N. W. 240, 29 Am. St. Rep. 514 ; blackber ries while growing ; Sparrow v. Pond, 49 Minn. 412, 52 N. W. 36, 16 L. P A. 103, 32 Am. St. Rep. 571; apart from the articles it has served to identify ; Prince Mfg. Co. v. Paint Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 462 ; a vendor's lien reserved for the purchase price of lands .conveyed ; Willis & Bro. v. Som meriille, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 509, 22 S. W. 781; the interest of a cestui que trust under a trust for maintenance and support; Brooks v. Reynolds, 59 Fed. 923, 8 C. C. A. 370; the interest of the grantor in property trans ferred in fraud of creditors ; Stonebridge v. Perkins, 141 N. Y. 1, 35 N. E. 980. State ex emption laws are • inapplicable to debts due from a citizen to the United States ; U. S. v. Howell, 9 Fed. 674. See Fink v. O'Neil, 106 U. S. 280, 1 Sup. Ct. 325, 27 L. Ed. 196.

Exemption laws are not a part of the con tract; they are part of the remedy and sub ject to the law of the forum ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 17 Sup. Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144 ; Mineral Point R. Co. v. Barron, 83 Ill. 365 ; Carson v. Ry. Co., 88 Tenn. 646, 13 S. W. 588, 8 L. R. A. 412, 17 Am. St. Rep. 921; Conley v. Chilcote, 25 Ohio St. 320; Albrecht v. Treitschke, 17 Neb. 205, 22 N. W. 418 ; Moore v. R. Co., 43 Ia. 385 ; Broadstreet v. Clark, 65 Ia. 670, 22 N. W. 919; Stevens v. Brown, 20 W. Va. 450. That a debt is exempt from judicial process in the state ,where it was created will not make it exempt in another jurisdiction. The exemption does not follow the debt as an incident thereto ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 17 Sup. Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144.

See, generally, BANKRUPTCY ; DISTRESS -', EXECUTION; HOMESTEAD; FAMILY ; TOOLS ; TAX.