Berg v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 24 March 1884
• Citation: Berg v. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541, 18 N.W. 821 (Minn. 1884)
• Parties: Ole H. Berg v. Cornelius Baldwin and another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

18 N.W. 821

31 Minn. 541

Ole H. Berg v. Cornelius Baldwin and another

Supreme Court of Minnesota

March 24, 1884

This action was brought in the municipal court of Moorhead, to recover the value of two young oxen, alleged to have been taken and converted by defendants. The complaint prayed for judgment for $ 150, claiming treble damages. The answer justified the taking under a writ of execution against plaintiff. The action was tried by the court, which held that the oxen were exempt from execution and were of the value of $ 80, and ordered judgment for plaintiff for $ 150, -- the full amount prayed for, -- which was entered. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial.

Geo. I Waterman and Burnham, Mills & Tillotson, for appellants.

Mosness & Douglas, for respondent.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

Action for wrongfully and unlawfully taking and converting "two young oxen." The defendants justify the taking under an execution issued on a judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendant Shove, and delivered for service to defendant Baldwin as constable.

1. The first question is whether the property was exempt. The court finds "that plaintiff was a farmer living on a government homestead; that the plaintiff, at the time of said levy, neither possessed nor owned any horses or mules, or oxen, or any team whatever, except the pair of steers levied on, and that they were raised and kept by him for the purpose of being used by him as his team upon his claim as soon as they should be strong enough for farm use. It does not appear in the evidence whether these steers had or had not as yet actually been yoked together or broken, but, * * * at the age of the steers in question, they may be used to perform light work." The court also finds that at the time they were taken, the steers were "past two years old." On this state of facts they were exempt under Gen St. 1878, c. 66, § 310, subd. 6, as "a yoke of oxen." Such statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the right of exemption. Their object is to secure certain articles necessary to the sustenance of the debtor and his family from being taken for debt. The legislature must have had in mind that many men are not in possession of sufficient means to purchase full-grown or well-broken teams. Their only way to acquire them may be to obtain the young animals. If not protected in so doing by the exemption law, those who most need it would derive the least benefit from it. Hence the general tendency of the courts is to hold that where a statute exempts "horses," "oxen," or "cows," young animals of the species and description that by time and subsequent growth would become such in a popular sense,...