Roberts v. Parker

• Decision Date: 31 May 1902
• Parties: ROBERTS v. PARKER, SHERIFF.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

117 Iowa 389

90 N.W. 744

ROBERTS

v.PARKER, SHERIFF.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 31, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Floyd county; Clifford P. Smith, Judge.

The defendant, as sheriff, levied an execution on the plaintiff's bicycle which the latter replevied as exempt. A demurrer to his petition was sustained, and he appeals. Reversed.

Ladd, C. J., and Waterman, J., dissenting.

Robert Eggert, for appellant.

J. W. Brown, for appellee.

LADD, C. J.

The assignments of error attached to the abstract were totally insufficient, but subsequently an amendment thereto was filed, specifically pointing out the errors alleged. As these had been clearly indicated in the appellant's argument, and fully met in the appellee's brief, no prejudice could have resulted from the delay. For this reason the motion to dismiss must be overruled.

2. Is a bicycle, habitually used by a painter, paper hanger, and billposter to earn a livelihood, he being the head of a family, exempt from execution? Section 4008 of the Code, in so far as applicable, reads: “If the debtor is the head of a family he may hold exempt from execution, * * * if a physician, public officer, farmer, teamster, or other laborer, a team consisting of not more than two horses or mules, or two yoke of cattle, and the wagon or other vehicle, with the proper harness or tackle by the use of which he habitually earns his living, otherwise one horse.” That plaintiff was a laborer within the meaning of this section is not questioned. As certainly the bicycle is a vehicle. The decisions so holding are too numerous for citation. But is it a vehicle such as was contemplated by the legislature in enacting the statute? It is well settled that statutes of exemption should receive a liberal construction, such as shall aid, in so far as may be, in carrying out the beneficent object of the legislation (Davis v. Humphrey, 22 Iowa, 137;Tank Line Co. v. Hunt, 83 Iowa, 6, 48 N. W. 1057, 2 L. R. A. 476, 32 Am. St. Rep. 285); and they are to be construed in favor of those claiming their benefits (Bevan v. Hayden, 13 Iowa, 122;Kaiser v. Seaton, 62 Iowa, 463, 17 N. W. 664). Because of the liberal construction usually given a statute of this character, the majority of the court hold that a bicycle is included in the term “other vehicle,” as found in the section quoted. While it was not in use, or even known, in the state at the time of such enactment, they are of opinion that the law should keep pace with progress and improvement in the industrial arts, and that the bicycle should be adjudged exempt to a laborer who is the head of a family, and habitually uses it to earn a living. On the other hand, the writer, with whom concurs Mr. Justice WATERMAN, while conceding the force of these suggestions, reaches a different conclusion. Precisely what may be claimed as exempt is enumerated in the statute, and nothing is...