Opitz v. Brawley
Decision Date | 05 April 1960 |
Citation | 102 N.W.2d 117,10 Wis.2d 93 |
Parties | Douglas J. OPITZ, Respondent, Madison Building Corp., Respondent, v. George R. BRAWLEY, Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Maxon W. Polland, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Wiernick & Zurlo, Maurice Weinstein, Milwaukee, for respondents.
Sec. 241.08, Stats., provides in part:
'* * * Nor shall a chattel mortgage of personal property which is by law exempt from seizure and sale upon execution, except a purchase money chattel mortgage, be valid unless the same be signed by the wife of the person making such chattel mortgage, if he be a married man and his wife at the time be a member of his family, and unless such signature of such wife be witnessed by 2 witnesses. * * *'
Sec. 272.18 provides exemption from seizure or sale upon execution, among other things, of and
The civil court was apparently of the opinion that if a debtor's books are used in his business, the debtor can claim exemption of such books only under subd. (8) of sec. 272.18, and therefore that the property covered by the chattel mortgages was exempt only to the extent of $200 in value. Plaintiff and intervenor call attention to decisions in other states that law books may properly be considered 'tools and implements' of an attorney. See Annotation, 52 A.L.R. 826, 830, citing Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott, 1926, 22 Ohio App. 516, 154 N.E. 62. Under our statutes, however, if the defendant's law books are exempt under subd. (3) of sec. 272.18, it would be unnecessary for defendant to claim that they were exempt under subd. (8), and therefore subject to the limitation of $200 in amount. Except for the express exclusion of circulating libraries, subd. (3) does not expressly exclude from the exemption of a 'library' a library used in connection with a gainful occupation. The dictionary definition of 'library' does not exclude books used in connection with a gainful occupation as long as the books are used for reading, or study, and are not kept as merchandise. One of the definitions in Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed.) is: 'A collection of books, etc., kept for study or reading and not as merchandise; as, a private library.'
'It is well settled that exemption laws must have a liberal construction, within the limits contemplated by the Legislature, so as to secure their full benefit to the debtor, in order to advance the humane purpose of preserving to the unfortunate or improvident debtor and his family the means of obtaining a liverlihood and thus prevent him from becoming a charge upon the public. * * *' Julius v. Druckrey, 1934, 214 Wis. 643, 649, 254 N.W. 358, 361, 94 A.L.R. 293.
Accordingly, we conclude that the books constituting defendant's library were exempt under sec. 272.18(3), Stats. It follows from sec. 241.08 that since the chattel mortgage was not a purchase money chattel mortgage, nor properly executed by defendant's wife, plaintiff's mortgage was invalid as to the books.
The various items of office equipment also included under the two chattel mortgages properly constitute (under subd. (8)) tools and implements of a person used or kept for the purpose of carrying on his business. The word 'business' is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed.), among other things, as: 'Any particular occupation or employment habitually engaged in, esp. for livelihood or gain.' While in some contexts, a distinction may be made between a business and a profession, we see no occasion for that distinction in construing this statute. We conclude that the office equipment was exempt up to a value of $200.
This court has recognized that sec. 241.08, Stats., will operate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Bronk
...his family the means of obtaining a livelihood and thus prevent him from becoming a charge upon the public.Opitz v. Brawley, 10 Wis.2d 93, 95–96, 102 N.W.2d 117, 119 (Wis.1960) (citing Julius v. Druckrey, 214 Wis. 643, 649, 254 N.W. 358, 361 (Wis.1934)). At the same time, a liberal construc......
-
In re Woller
...to be liberally construed so that they “secure their full benefit to the debtor.” SeeWis. Stat. § 815.18(1): Opitz v. Brawley, 10 Wis.2d 93, 95–96, 102 N.W.2d 117, 119 (Wis.1960) (citing Julius v. Druckrey, 214 Wis. 643, 649, 254 N.W. 358, 361 (Wis.1934)). At the same time, the right to an ......
-
State Bank of Hartland v. Arndt
...Arndts find significance in the rule that the exemption laws are liberally construed in favor of debtors, Opitz v. Brawley, 10 Wis.2d 93, 95-96, 102 N.W.2d 117, 119 (1960), and that a mortgagee holding security on nonexempt and exempt properties must first proceed against the nonexempt prop......
-
In re Paul W. LARK
...and his family the means of obtaining a livelihood and thus prevent him from becoming a charge upon the public. Opitz v. Brawley, 10 Wis.2d 93, 95, 102 N.W.2d 117, 119 (Wis.1960) (citing Julius v. Druckrey, 214 Wis. 643, 649, 254 N.W. 358, 361 (Wis.1934)). However, it is also true that in t......