Case v. Dunmore
| Decision Date | 04 April 1854 |
| Citation | 23 Pa. 93 |
| Parties | Case <I>versus</I> Dunmore. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
It has been repeatedly decided by this Court that the exemption of goods from execution under the Act of 1849, is a privilege for the benefit of the debtor which he may waive even by the omission to claim it at the proper time, without any express contract for the purpose. But where at the time of contracting the debt he agrees to waive the benefit of the exemption, and this forms the ground of the credit given to him, the injustice of permitting him to violate his contract and thus to defraud his creditor, is too palpable to need illustration, or to require the aid of precedents to discountenance it. Notwithstanding the benevolent provisions of the statute in favor of unfortunate and thoughtless debtors, it was far from the intention of the legislature to deprive the free citizens of the state of the right, upon due deliberation, to make their own contracts in their own way, in regard to securing the payment of debts honestly due. Creditors are still recognised as having some rights; and it was not the intention of the legislature to destroy them by impairing the obligation of contracts. It frequently happens that the creditor is more in need of public sympathy than the debtor. When a poor man is unjustly kept out of money due to him, the distress arising from the want of it is often greater than that caused to the other party by its collection. If the suffering was but equal, it is plain that one man should not suffer for the follies or misfortunes of another. Every one should bear his own burthen. The statute which exempts debtors from the operation of this principle, did not take away from them the right to waive the privilege...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Demayo v. Chames
...(limiting the public policy bar to waiver of homestead exemptions to "the actual facts in the case[] in which [it was] made"); Case v. Dunmore, 23 Pa. 93 (Pa.1854); see also McMillan v. Aru, 773 So.2d (Miss.App.2000); Schuler v. Wallace, 61 Haw. 590, 607 P.2d 411 (Haw.1980) (permitting waiv......
-
Demayo v. Chames, Case No. 3D04-117 (FL 3/15/2006)
...the public policy bar to waiver of homestead exemptions to "the actual facts in the case[] in which [it was] made"); Case v. Dunmore, 23 Pa. 93 (Pa. 1854); see also McMillan v. Aru, 773 So. 2d 355 (Miss. App. 2000); Schuler v. Wallace, 607 P. 2d 411 (Haw. 1980)(permitting waiver by failure ......
-
Mayhugh v. Coon
...for in the Act of April 9, 1849, and therefore sustain the appeal of the instant appellants. 2 In Pennsylvania, it was held in Case v. Dunmore, 23 Pa. 93 (1854) and thereafter, by its progeny, 3 that such an exemption is a personal privilege, which the debtor may waive at pleasure. In Case ......
-
Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Hamlin
...the debtor's interest arising from the exemption statute was an interest personal to the debtor and could be waived by him. See Case v. Dunmore, 23 Pa. 93 (1854). Hawley extended this principle to find an implied waiver in any pledge of personal property. Throughout the subsequent years, it......