Skinner v. Shannon

• Decision Date: 16 June 1880
• Citation: 44 Mich. 86,6 N.W. 108
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SKINNER and others v. SHANNON and others.

6 N.W. 108

44 Mich. 86

SKINNER and others v. SHANNON and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 16, 1880

The several members of a partnership are entitled to claim the statutory allowance of property exempt from execution out of partnership property.

Error to Shiawassee.

J.B Wilkin and Hugh McCurdy, for plaintiffs in error.

H.H Pulver, for defendants.

MARSTON C.J.

Where a levy is made upon a stock of goods of a copartnership, is the firm as such, or the several members thereof, entitled to claim any part thereof as being exempt under the law of this state? This question has arisen in several of the states, and thus far there is a want of harmony in the answers given thereto. We must, therefore, in the light of those cases, look to the constitution, statutes and decisions of this state, and, unfettered by previous decisions construe the statute in accordance with the letter and evident spirit thereof.

Our constitution, in section 1, art. 16, provides that "the personal property of any resident of this state, to consist of such property only as shall be designated by law, shall be exempted, to the amount of not less than five hundred dollars, from sale on execution, or other final process of any court, issued for the collection of any debt contracted after the adoption of this constitution."

The eighth subdivision of our statute, (2 Comp.Laws, � 6101,) under which this claim comes, is as follows: "The tools implements, materials, stock, apparatus, team, vehicle, horses, harness, or other things, to enable any person to carry on the profession, trade, occupation, or business in which he is wholly or principally engaged, not exceeding in value two hundred and fifty dollars."

The exemption laws of this state have ever received a most liberal construction in aid of the wise and humane policy so clearly set forth in our constitution and laws. As was said in Rosenthal v. Scott, 41 Mich. 633, the laws securing exemptions are not to be frittered away by construction so as to destroy their value. It has been held, accordingly, that one whose principal business was that of blacksmith might manufacture a wagon during his leisure time and offer the same for sale, and that it would be exempt while in process of manufacture and while held for sale. Stewart v. Welton, 32 Mich. 56.

So a farm homestead right cannot be put in jeopardy by the extension of village limits so as to bring such property within the village. Barber v. Rorabeck, 36 Mich 401. So the execution debtor is entitled to the full statutory exemption. Personal property subject to a mortgage for more than its appraised value cannot be turned out to him. Bayne v. Patterson, 40 Mich. 658. A homestead can be claimed in lands held in joint tenancy, or as tenants in common. Lozo v. Sutherland, 38 Mich. 171. And in lands of which a party was in possession under a contract to purchase. Orr v. Schraft, 22 Mich. 261. So a house, exempt as such, might be removed to another parcel of land without danger of seizure while in transit. Bunker v. Paquette, 37 Mich. 79. And a boarding-house keeper is entitled to the same exemption of household furniture as any other person. Vanderhorst v. Bacon, 38 Mich. 669...