Mikkleson v. Parker
Citation | 19 P. 31,3 Wash.Terr. 527 |
Parties | MIKKLESON v. PARKER, SHERIFF. |
Decision Date | 01 February 1888 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fourth district court.
Replevin by Jasper Mikkleson against Frank F. Parker, as sheriff, for a team of horses levied upon by the latter, and claimed as exempt by the former. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
This is a proceeding in replevin by the appellant against Parker, as sheriff, to recover a team of horses seized by the sheriff under execution, and claimed by appellant to be exempt to him under chapter 32 of the Code. Appellant, in addition to the above facts, alleges that he is a farmer; that this is his only team; and that he had promptly given to the sheriff an "itemized list of all the property owned or claimed by him as exempt," etc.; and asks their return, or their value, and also damages for the detention. These allegations are denied by appellee, who affirmatively pleads that First, that said horses are work-horses second, that appellant is a farmer, residing in Yakima county, and had no other horses;" " fourth, that plaintiff demanded the release of said property, and delivered to said sheriff an itemized list of property, purporting to contain an enumeration of all the personal property owned by him properly verified," etc.; " sixth, that plaintiff had other personal property at the time, not included in said list, which was intentionally omitted from said list by him; and as a conclusion of law finds said property was not exempt from execution."
The finding that appellant was a farmer of Yakima county, and had no other horses than this team of work-horses, would certainly entitle him to the exemption claimed, unless he has committed clearly some fraud which would justify the taking away from him, as a punishment, the broad and liberal provisions of this exemption law. The statement in the findings that he intentionally omitted from said list other personal property owned by him is the only evidence or basis upon which to sustain this action. Is this sufficient? Had he possessed other horses which he concealed or failed to list and thereby prevented the determination of the exemption of these horses, this might be sufficient; but not so here, for the court expressly finds he had only this team. The failure to list other property, then, could not directly affect the question of whether or not these were exempt; for one team is exempt, regardless of what else he may have. Because he may have had other property (not horses) which he did not list is this exemption lost? Our exemption law provides (section 347 et seq.) for allowance to the debtor of certain household furniture, not exceeding $150 in value; certain animals, etc., in lieu of which he may select other property not exceeding $150 in value; farming utensils, not exceeding $200 in value; to a mechanic, materials not exceeding in value $500; a physician, medicines, etc., not exceeding $200,-with many other instances where certain things, up to a fixed amount, are allowed, the surplus over such fixed amount, of course, being liable for his debts. Section 349 provides:...
To continue reading
Request your trial