In re Robinson

• Decision Date: 19 June 1913
• Parties: In re ROBINSON.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

206 F. 176

In re ROBINSON.

United States District Court, D. Idaho, Northern Division.

June 19, 1913

Whitla & Nelson, of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, for trustee.

McFarland & McFarland, of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, for bankrupt.

DIETRICH District Judge.

By this proceeding the trustee in bankruptcy seeks the review of an order made by the referee on the 24th day of April, 1913 setting aside certain personal property of the bankrupt as exempt under and by virtue of section 4480 of the Idaho Revised Codes. By this provision of the statute 'tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan necessary to carry on his trade, not exceeding in value the sum of five hundred dollars' are exempt from execution. The property described in and set aside by the order consists of a large number of different articles of personal property, some of them being tools or appliances generally used by blacksmiths and some of them being more particularly required by electricians, and others being more commonly used by carpenters, and still others relating to various trades, and some being in common use in several callings.

Among the articles are an electric motor, and a lathe, which because of their size and character, it is contended by counsel for the trustee should not be classed as 'tools' or 'implements'; but while it is impossible to lay down any general rule on the subject, and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a tool or implement upon the one hand and a machine upon the other, I am inclined to think that under the circumstances, and considering the purpose for which they are used by the bankrupt, together with their size and character, they may properly be classed as 'implements' under the statute. In re Robb, 99 Cal. 202, 33 P. 890, 33 Am.St.Rep. 48.

But the point most earnestly urged is that, under the statute, a debtor must confine his claim of exemption to tools or implements designed for and used only in one distinct specialized trade or calling, and that, therefore, the bankrupt here cannot claim as exempt blacksmith tools, and carpenter tools, and electrical tools, but he must elect between the several trades, and confine his claim to those used in the one so chosen. It is not pretended that the Supreme Court of the state has ever construed the statute in this respect, and, moreover, there are apparently very few, if any, reported decisions from other states involving the precise point. There are case...