Burdge v. Bolin

• Decision Date: 13 April 1886
• Docket Number: 12,546
• Citation: Burdge v. Bolin, 106 Ind. 175, 6 N.E. 140 (Ind. 1886)
• Parties: Burdge v. Bolin et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

6 N.E. 140

106 Ind. 175

Burdge v. Bolin et al

No. 12,546

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 13, 1886

From the Wabash Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

M. H Kidd and N. G. Hunter, for appellant.

M. Good and O. H. Bogue, for appellees.

OPINION

Howk J.

In this case the only error assigned by appellant Burdge, the plaintiff below, is, that the trial court erred in its conclusions of law upon its special finding of facts.

At appellant's request, the court found specially that the facts of this case were substantially as follows:

Johnson M. Burdge, plaintiff, on the 25th day of April, 1882, recovered judgment in the Wabash Circuit Court against the defendant Elisha Bolin, in the sum of $ 1,550.40 and costs, and there was then due and unpaid on such judgment, of principal and interest, the sum of $ 1,251. The plaintiff caused an execution to be issued on such judgment by the clerk of the Wabash Circuit Court, on the 11th day of October, 1882, to the sheriff of Wabash county, and such execution was by him returned on the 8th day of January 1883, that no property of the defendant was found upon which to levy. On the 14th day of August, 1882, defendant Elisha Bolin was a resident householder of Wabash county, in this State, and has since continued to be such a resident householder. On such 14th day of August, 1882, he owned household goods and a cow of the value of $ 190, and had in money and notes $ 350, which constituted all his property of any kind whatever, either within or without this State. On such 14th day of August, 1882, defendant Elizabeth Bolin purchased the property described in the complaint as lot No. 40, in the town of North Manchester, in Wabash county, of Levi J. Noftzger, at the price of $ 1,400. Defendant Elisha Bolin gave to her, his wife, without consideration, the money and notes aforesaid, amounting to $ 350, to be used by her, and it was so used in the purchase of such lot, and constituted the first payment thereon. Elisha Bolin was indebted at the time to plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,000, and his wife Elizabeth knew of such indebtedness. The title to such lot had ever since remained in the name of Elizabeth Bolin, and, since such purchase, Elisha Bolin never had any other property than the household furniture and cow aforesaid, except his earnings from his labor, which had been consumed in the support of his family.

Upon the foregoing facts the trial court stated as its conclusion of law, that Elisha Bolin being a resident householder on such 14th day of August, 1882, the personal property aforesaid, amounting to the sum of $ 540, was by law exempt from execution, and there was no fraud in his giving his money and notes, of the value of $ 350, to his wife and co-defendant, Elizabeth Bolin, and that she was entitled to hold such property as against the claims of the plaintiff.

The single question presented for our decision by appellant's assignment of error may be thus stated: Upon the facts specially found by the court, is there any error in its conclusion of law? We are clearly of the opinion that this question must be answered in the negative. Of course, as we have often decided, by his exception to the court's conclusion of law, appellant admits that the facts of the case were fully and correctly found in the special finding, but he says that the court has erred in applying the law to the facts so found in its conclusion of law. Fairbanks v. Meyers, 98 Ind. 92; Schindler v. Westover, 99 Ind. 395; State, ex rel., v. Emmons, 99 Ind. 452; Shoemaker v. Smith, 100 Ind. 40; Helms v. Wagner, 102 Ind. 385, 1 N.E. 730.

Upon the facts found by the court in the case under consideration admitted by appellant to have been fully and correctly found, we are strongly impressed with the opinion that the trial court arrived at a just, wise, and equitable conclusion of law. The fundamental law of this State, in section 22 of the Bill of Rights, has enjoined upon the General Assembly to recognize the privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability thereafter contracted. Responsive to this constitutional injunction, the General Assembly has provided in section 703, R. S. 1881, that an amount of property, not exceeding in value six hundred dollars, owned by any resident householder, shall not be liable to sale on execution, or any other final process from a court, for any debt growing out of or founded upon a contract, express or implied. This court has uniformly held that our statutes of exemption of a debtor's property from seizure or sale for the payment of any contract, debt or liability, must be liberally con...