Gillett State Bank v. Knaack
| Decision Date | 09 November 1938 |
| Citation | 281 N.W. 913,229 Wis. 179 |
| Parties | GILLETT STATE BANK v. KNAACK (EBENREITER, Garnishee). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Oconto County; Arold F. Murphy, Judge.
Reversed.
The garnishee action was commenced on October 7, 1937, by the plaintiff, Gillett State Bank, against the defendant, Ella Knaack, and the garnishee, Charles H. Ebenreiter, for the purpose of subjecting certain money in the possession of the garnishee, to the payment of the defendant's indebtedness to it. The defendant answered and alleged in substance, that the moneys in the possession of the garnishee represented the proceeds of the sale of exempt personal property which had belonged to her and that such proceeds were and are exempt from execution. Trial was had to the court, without a jury. The court found the facts, which will be summarized in the opinion, and concluded that the moneys in the hands of the garnishee, at the time of the commencement of the action, were exempt from execution and therefore not subject to garnishment. From a judgment dismissing the garnishee action, entered March 26, 1938, the plaintiff appealed.
George Crawford, of Gillett, for appellant.
Eberlein & McCarthy, of Shawano, for respondents.
The facts are stipulated and may be summarized as follows: On October 5, 1937, the defendant, Ella Knaack, a farmer, was the owner of certain personal property, all of which was exempt from execution. Sometime prior to that date, the defendant had owned a farm which had been lost on foreclosure. After losing her farm, she still owned the personal property mentioned, which she intended to use upon another farm to be rented by her, in order to support herself and family. She was, at that time, unable to remove her said personal property to another farm, and because of lack of facilities to care for it, she determined to sell it and retain the money for the purpose of purchasing like property for use upon the farm which she intended to rent in the immediate future. On October 6, 1937, in pursuance of such determination, the defendant employed the garnishee to sell the said personal property at auction, the garnishee to receive 10% of the proceeds as his commission for such services. The personal property sold was exempt from execution. At the time of the commencement of this action there was, in the hands of the garnishee, the sum of $650.71, which represented the net proceeds of the sale of said exempt personal property.
The sole question for decision is whether the proceeds of a voluntary sale of personal property, which is exempt from execution, may or may not be garnisheed. The plaintiff contends that such proceeds are not exempt. The defendant contends that they are. The circuit court held that such proceeds were exempt from execution and therefore not subject to garnishment.
[1] It is clear that in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions, all of the property of a debtor may be subjected to the payment of his debts. Williams v. Smith, 117 Wis. 142, 93 N.W. 464.
[2] The question therefore is one of statutory construction. Sec. 272.18, Stats., exempts from execution the specific personal properties listed in its twenty-six subdivisions. While the legislature has declared that “all moneys arising from insurance of any property exempted from sale on execution, including the homestead, when such property has been destroyed by fire” shall be exempt, Sec. 272.18 (17), Stats., and that “such exemption [homestead exemption] shall not be impaired *** by the sale thereof, but shall extend to the proceeds derived from such sale to an amount not exceeding five thousanddollars, while held, with the intention to procure another homestead therewith, for two years,” section 272.20 (1), we search in vain for any language expressly or impliedly providing that the proceeds derived from the sale of exempt personal property, voluntarily sold, shall be exempt from execution.
The precise question before us has not heretofore been presented to this court. However, in Roundy v. Converse, 71 Wis. 524, 528, 37 N.W. 811, 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Leck, Bankruptcy No. MM7-89-02580.
...896 (1974), citing Northwest Bank and Trust Co. v. Minor, 275 Wis. 516, 517, 82 N.W.2d 323 (1957). See also Gillette State Bank v. Knaack, 229 Wis. 179, 181, 281 N.W. 913 (1938); Williams v. Smith, 117 Wis. 142, 93 N.W. 464 In Williams, the Wisconsin Supreme Court referred to former sec. 30......
-
Matter of Woods, Bankruptcy No. MM7-85-01638.
...of exempt property retain exempt status requires a careful examination of the particular statutory provision. Gillett State Bank v. Knaack, 229 Wis. 179, 181, 281 N.W. 913 (1938). As noted above, Wisconsin exemption statutes must be liberally construed. Despite this, the general rule is tha......
-
Northwest Bank & Trust Co., Davenport, Iowa v. Minor
...debtor may be subjected to the payment of his debts. Williams v. Smith, 1903, 117 Wis. 142, 93 N.W. 464; Gillett State Bank v. Knaack, 1938, 229 Wis. 179, 281 N.W. 913, 119 A.L.R. 464. The right of a debtor to hold his property free from the claims of creditors is not a common-law right but......