Roesler v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 03 March 1894 |
| Citation | 58 N.W. 342,3 N.D. 546 |
| Parties | ROESLER et al. v. TAYLOR, Sheriff. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Section 208 of the constitution of North Dakota, which provides that “the right of the debtor to enjoy the comforts and necessaries of life shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting from forced sale to all heads of families a homestead, the value of which shall be limited and defined by law, and a reasonable amount of personal property; the kind and value shall be fixed by law,”-does not, in the absence of legislation thereunder, repeal or annul the pre-existing exemption laws, under which a partnership firm was entitled to claim one exemption of $1,500 out of the partnership assets.
Appeal from district court, Ransom county; W. S. Lauder, Judge.
Action by Emil R. Roesler and Ralph E. White, partners, against F. W. Taylor, sheriff, for an injunction. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Ed. Pierce, for appellant. Robert J. Mitchell, for respondents.
The respondents, Roesler & White, were partners in business. A judgment was obtained against them, as such partners, upon a partnership debt, and execution was issued thereon, and levied upon all of their partnership property; whereupon, they made a verified schedule of all their partnership property, which amounted in value to less than $1,500, and served the same upon the officer having the execution, and who is appellant herein, with notice that they claimed the property upon which he had levied, as their exemptions, and demanding its release. The officer refused to release, and respondents commenced an action against him, and procured an injunction restraining the sale of the property. From the order granting the injunction the officer appeals to this court, and it is agreed that the only question involved is whether or not a partnership, as such, is entitled to any exemption, under the constitution and laws of this state.
Sections 5126 to 5140, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws, which were in force in the late territory of Dakota, allowed the debtor, whether the head of a family or not, to hold personal property to the amount of $1,500 exempt from sale on execution, upon complyingwith the requirements of the statutes, and also provided that a partnership firm could claim one exemption of $1,500 out of the partnership property. Such was the law at the time of the adoption of our constitution, which provided, in section 208 thereof, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birks v. Globe Int'l Protective Bureau, 5479.
...throughout the entire history of the state. Const. N. D. § 208; sections 5605, 7730, C. L. 1913. See, also, Roesler and White v. Taylor, 3 N. D. 546, 58 N. W. 342. While the homestead exemption is declared to be claimable by the head of the family, this right is not vested in him as an indi......
-
State ex rel. Agnew v. Schneider
...to this Constitution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation or be altered or repealed. In Roesler et al. v. Taylor, 3 N.D. 546, 58 N.W. 342 (1894), the court had under consideration whether or not §§ 5126 to 5140 of the Territorial Compiled Laws, which allowed a par......
-
Engstad v. Grand Forks County
... ... Lim. (5th Ed.) p. 99. This rule of construction has been ... applied by this court: See State v. Swan, 1 ... N.D. 5, 44 N.W. 492; Roesler v. Taylor, 3 ... N.D. 546, 58 N.W. 342. It is sometimes difficult to determine ... whether a given constitutional provision is or is not ... ...
-
Calmer v. Calmer
... ... "guaranty to every resident head of a family in this ... state an exemption of a homestead." Roesler v ... Taylor, 3 N.D. 546, 548, 58 N.W. 342. The legislature is ... required to limit the value of this homestead exemption ... ...