Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Goode

• Decision Date: 04 February 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 113,101 Iowa 160
• Parties: EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF UNITED STATES v. GOODE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

101 Iowa 160

70 N.W. 113

EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF UNITED STATES

v.GOODE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 4, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; C. P. Holmes, Judge.

Action at law, aided by a landlord's attachment, to recover rent due for leased premises. The writ of attachment was levied upon property of the defendant claimed by him to be exempt from execution. There was a trial by the court without a jury, and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $147, and for the sale of the attached property. From so much of the judgment as sustained the attachment and ordered the sale of the attached property, the defendant appeals. Reversed.Bishop & Wilcoxen and L. W. Goode, for appellant.

Berryhill & Henry, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

The attached property consists of 56 volumes of Iowa Reports, and 6 other law books, and office furniture and office supplies. The defendant claims that the property was exempt from seizure to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff, because at the time it was taken he was a resident of this state, the head of a family, and an attorney at law. It seems to be conceded in argument that if the defendant was a lawyer, within the meaning of the exemption law, at the time of the attachment, then the property in question was exempt from attachment; and the question we are required to determine is whether the evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding that the defendant was at that time a lawyer, within the meaning of the statute. It is conceded that he was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor in the courts of this state in the year 1878. He testified in his own behalf that he resides in Des Moines; that in December, 1892, when he became a party to the lease on which this action was brought, and when the attachment was levied, he was an attorney at law, and in the real-estate business, and supported himself by his personal earnings; that from the time of his admission to the bar until 1881 he confined himself exclusively to the practice of the law; and that since that time he has had other business interests which took a great portion of his time. On cross-examination he stated that he does not advertise himself as an attorney at law, and did not do so publicly during the term of his lease; that he had not tried any cases in court during the term of the lease; that he did not have any sign about the building, excepting his law books, to indicate that he was making his living by practicing as an attorney; that he drew many agreements and other legal papers; that all the legal business of the corporations with which he was connected was referred to him, and that he was their counselor, and attended to their miscellaneous law business outside of the courts; that he used his legal knowledge in his own business, and in the business and interests of the corporations in which he was interested; and that it was common for parties to have him draw papers for them. This is all the evidence there was which tended to show that the defendant was a lawyer. To show that he was not a lawyer at the time in...