In re Petersen

• Decision Date: 06 July 1899
• Docket Number: 2,925.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: In re PETERSEN.

95 F. 417

In re PETERSEN.

No. 2,925.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

July 6, 1899

Samuel Rosenheim and F. C. Mosebach, for bankrupt.

DE HAVEN, District Judge.

The certificate of the referee shows that, in the course of proceedings before him in said cause, the following question arose:

'The bankrupt herein claimed the following articles as exempt under sections 6 and 47 of the bankruptcy act, and section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of California, to wit, 50 bread pans, 4 bread peals, 45 dozen molds for bread and cakes, 30 bread boxes, 2 long benches 1 square bench, 1 square table, 2 triangles for mixing dough, 4 bowie knives, 1 table knife, 2 sieves, 1 lot ornamenting tools, 2 bread scales with weights, 3 scrapers 2 trainers, 2 yeast barrels, 2 big stone jugs, 40 bread boards, 3 wooden bowls, 3 rolling pins, 2 doughnut kettles with grates. The testimony of the bankrupt showed that he is a baker, and carried on business as such in this city until adjudicated a bankrupt; that he employed a number of workmen, journeymen bakers, who worked in the shop with the bankrupt, and used the various articles claimed as exempt. The bankrupt also testified that, if his claim was approved, he expected to go into business again as a baker and that he would again employ workmen to assist him, and who would use these identical articles. The testimony of the bankrupt also showed that journeymen bakers carried no tools or implements with them, nor were they expected to provide them when employed.'

The bankrupt's claim for exemption was resisted by the trustee, and, upon the foregoing testimony, the referee found that the articles above described 'were not the tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan,' and made an order denying the bankrupt's claim to exemption, and the question of the correctness of this ruling has been certified to the judge of this court for his opinion.

Subdivision 4 of section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure of this state provides that 'the tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan necessary to carry on his trade' are exempt from execution. The supreme court of California, in construing this section in Re McManus' Estate, 87 Cal. 292, 25 P. 413, said:

'Statutes exempting personal property from forced sale are remedial in character, and are evidently intended to protect the debtor, and enable him to follow his vocation, and thus earn a support for himself and family. The general rule now is that such statutes are to be liberally construed, so as to effectuate the humane purpose designed by the lawmakers, and our Code of Civil Procedure declares that all of its provisions are to be so construed 'with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.' Section 4.'

In accordance with this rule, it was held in that case that a jeweler's safe owned by the debtor, and used in his business as a jeweler and watch repairer, was exempt from execution as an implement of his trade.

Following the construction placed upon section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case just cited, I am of the opinion that the bankrupt was, at the date of his adjudication as such bankrupt, an artisan, carrying on his trade, within the meaning of the law,...