Cochran v. Harvey

• Decision Date: 01 February 1892
• Citation: 88 Ga. 352,14 S.E. 580
• Parties: Cochran. v. Harvey et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

14 S.E. 580

88 Ga. 352

Cochran.

v.Harvey et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 1, 1892.

Waiver of Exemptions — Constitutional Restrictions—Corn on the Ear as Provisions.

Corn on the ear in the shuck is "provisions, " within the meaning of that clause of the constitution restricting the waiver of exemptions, and, under section 2039b of the Code, the same may be claimed and set apart as provisions, after which it will be exempt, notwithstanding any waiver, provided that all the property embraced in the exemption does not exceed $300 in value. The case of Wilson v. McMillan 80 Ga. 733, 6 S. E. Rep. 182, rules correctly and authoritatively that a milch cow is not "provisions, " but the definition of the word "provisions, " as given therein, is too narrow.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Campbell county; S. W. Harris, Judge.

Suit by J. E. Cochran against M. P. Harvey and others to enjoin the sale on execution of certain corn. Injunction denied. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

George Latham, for plaintiff in error.

J. F. Golightly, for defendants in error.

Bleckley, C. J. By the constitution (Code, §§ 5212, 5214) the debtor has power to waive or renounce, in writing, his right to the benefit of the exemptions allowed him, whether by the Code or the constitution, "except as to wearing apparel, and not exceeding three hundred dollars' worth of household and kitchen furniture and provisions." The question is as to whether the word "provisions, " as here used, will include corn on the ear in the shuck. Concessions made by law to the poor are to be construed liberally. Certainly a liberal interpretation would dictate an affirmative answer to this question, and the authorities in other states bearin that direction. Atkinson v. Gatcher, 23 Ark. 101; Mulligan v. Newton, 16 Gray, 211; King v. Moore, 10 Mich. 538; Thomp. Homest. & Ex. §§ 815, 816; Freem. Ex'ns, §§ 233, 236, i. To our minds the matter would be free from all doubt were it not that in section 2040 of the Code, where the statutory exemptions are provided for, corn is mentioned specifically immediately after the exemption of provisions has been dealt with. But this does not oblige us to hold that corn is not "provisions, " but only that where the debtor claims his exemption under the Code, and gets his full allowance of corn, as there limited, in bushels, he cannot take more corn under the general name of "provisions." Differing from the Code, the constitution names neither corn nor any other article of provisions. It uses the general term only, and that...