Bliss v. Vedder

• Decision Date: 09 July 1885
• Parties: J. W. BLISS v. JAMES S. VEDDER
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

7 P. 599

34 Kan. 57

J. W. BLISS v. JAMES S. VEDDER

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 9, 1885

Error from Washington District Court.

REPLEVIN brought by Bliss against Vedder, to recover a printing press type, etc. Trial at the April Term, 1883, and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

J. W Rector, and W. P. Mudgett, for plaintiff in error.

Lowe & Smith, for defendant in error.

VALENTINE J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

This was an action of replevin, brought by J. W. Bliss against James S. Vedder, to recover certain personal property hereafter mentioned. The case was tried before the court without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts. It appears from this agreed statement of facts that on December 19, 1882, the defendant, as constable, held an execution issued on an ordinary judgment for debt against the plaintiff, and then levied the same on one Washington Hoe printing press and certain type and other articles used in connection with the press in printing a weekly newspaper in Washington county, Kansas; that the plaintiff at and prior to that time was, and ever since has been, a resident of Kansas, a married man, and the head of a family; that he was then engaged in the business of editing and publishing said newspaper, and was also engaged in carrying on a job-printing business in Washington in partnership with one Crosby, and was also in partnership with one Mudgett in the loan, land and insurance business, and was also a justice of the peace; but that the publishing of said newspaper was his main, chief and principal business, from which he derived his principal support; that all the property so levied on was then used in and about the publishing of said newspaper, and was necessary for that purpose; that the plaintiff was not a practical printer, and used said property through the agency of his employes, except that he himself edited the newspaper and made up the same and arranged the matter and forms for the same, and did the work on the same usually done by the foreman of a weekly country newspaper; that said property then belonged to the plaintiff; that after it was levied on, and before the plaintiff began this action, he demanded the property of the defendant as being exempt from seizure, which demand was refused, and the plaintiff then brought this action of replevin and took and retained the property on an order of delivery. Upon these facts the court below held that the property was not exempt, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in the alternative for a return of the property or for $ 78.95, the value of the property, and for costs. The plaintiff brings the case to this court for review.

Counsel for the defendant state the question for consideration in this court as follows:

"The one and the only question for your consideration is as to whether a printing press and other materials used in the publishing of a weekly newspaper come within the provisions of subdivision 8, § 3, of our exemption law, when the owner of the same is not an operative, not a tradesman, not a 'practical printer,' but uses the same only by and through his employes, and this too in view of the fact that he is engaged at the same time in three other and distinct branches of business."

The exemptions provided for by said subdivision 8, § 3, of the exemption laws, are as follows:

"Eighth. The necessary tools and implements of any mechanic, miner, or other person, used and kept for the purpose of carrying on his trade or business; and in addition thereto, stock in trade not exceeding $ 400 in value."

The defendant claims that the printing press and other materials levied on in this case are not exempt from execution, for the reasons that they are not tools or implements at all, or if tools or implements, then that they are not the kind of tools or implements contemplated by the exemption laws; that the plaintiff is not a mechanic or miner, or other like person--not even a printer, but is a professional man and an editor of a newspaper; that the articles in controversy are not used or kept for the purpose of carrying on the plaintiff's trade or business as a...