Braswell v. Rehkoff

• Decision Date: 21 October 1897
• Parties: BRASWELL v. REHKOFF et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

42 S.W. 916

BRASWELL v. REHKOFF et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 21, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Lyon county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by E. Rehkoff and others against T. A. Braswell on two promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiffs sustaining attachment, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Wilson & James and T. L. Edelen, for appellant.

BURNAM J.

This suit was brought by appellees against appellant on two notes on which attachments were sued out and levied upon a small stock of goods belonging to appellant, on the ground that defendant was fraudulently disposing of his property to cheat his creditors. This ground was subsequently amended so as to include the additional ground that the defendant had not property enough to pay the debt sued on, and that the collection of the demand would be endangered by delay in obtaining judgment and return of "No property." Appellant controverts the first ground of the attachment, and alleges that he has not a sufficiency of provisions to sustain himself and family for twelve months, or one day that he owns two horses and a cow, and that he has not sufficient animal food to sustain live stock twelve months; and he asks that the property levied on by the attachment be set apart to him in lieu of the support afforded him and his family by the statute. The evidence shows that the defendant was a housekeeper, with a wife and two children; that he owned two work beasts and a cow, but that he had no food for the support of either; and there is no proof in the record which tends to show any fraud on the part of defendant. The attachment certainly fails on that ground. Appellees resisted the exemption claimed by defendant on the ground that the evidence showed that appellant had recovered a judgment against his grandfather's estate for a large sum of money, and therefore had ample means out of which to maintain his family; but it also shows that this judgment had been superseded, and an appeal taken to this court. If this evidence is sufficient to show that defendant was not entitled to the exemptions guarantied him by the statute, it also tended to show more conclusively that the collection of plaintiffs' claim would not be prejudiced by delay in obtaining judgment and return of "No property found." But it seems to us that a superseded judgment, even for a large sum, is insufficient to afford maintenance for a family. The right to the...