Stewart v. Welton
| Decision Date | 27 April 1875 |
| Citation | 32 Mich. 56 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John R. Stewart v. John F. Welton and another. [1] |
Heard April 23, 1875
Case made from Ionia Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Mitchel & Pratt, for plaintiff.
Wilson & Strickland, for defendants.
The plaintiff commenced an action of trespass in justice's court against the defendants, for the unlawful taking and converting a certain lumber wagon, seat, whiffletrees and neck-yoke, and recovered judgment. The defendants appealed to the circuit court, where the case was again tried and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The questions raised are now brought here upon a case made after judgment upon a special finding of the facts by the court below.
The circuit judge found that the plaintiff was a blacksmith, and had worked as such for fourteen years; that in the spring of 1873 he was a member of a firm engaged in such business, and that the property in controversy was manufactured by said firm, and for sale as stock in the line of their business of blacksmithing, in which the firm was wholly engaged, the firm intending from the proceeds of the sale of said property to replenish their stock and continue their business, the proceeds being necessary for that purpose; that it was usual, and was a part of the business of blacksmiths in that section, to buy the wood-work of wagons, and frequently pay for the same by changing works, and to do the iron-work of the wagons at odd spells and at dull seasons of the year, and sell the same when finished, applying the proceeds as above stated; that the firm was dissolved May 1, 1873, and in the settlement of its affairs and division of its assets this property fell to the plaintiff as his share; that after the dissolution the plaintiff continued the business of blacksmithing and was wholly engaged in that business, and that he held this property for sale, the proceeds to be used in carrying on his business, being necessary for that purpose; and that all the property owned by him, including the property in question, did not exceed in value one hundred and sixty dollars.
The defendants claimed to have purchased the property at an execution sale, the suit in which judgment was recovered and execution issued having been commenced by attachment, and the property seized thereon in August, 1873.
The only question necessary to be decided is, whether, under the facts as found, the property in question was exempt from levy and sale upon execution.
The defendants insist, that in order for the plaintiff to hold the property as exempt, it was incumbent upon him to show that he was principally engaged in some kind of trade or occupation which called for the use of a wagon; that keeping the property for sale, the proceeds thereof to be used as stated, would not enable him to carry on his trade at the time of the seizure and sale.
It is very evident, that to sustain this position and hold that the property in question, under the facts as found in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Wylie
...and so far from being blind to it, the courts have felt it to be their duty to give it a liberal exposition."); Stewart v. Welton, 32 Mich. 56, 59-60 (1875) ("[Exemption] statutes are remedial, and have not been strictly, but liberally construed for the purpose of carrying out the wise and ......
-
In re Spradlin
...and so far from being blind to it, the courts have felt it to be their duty to give it a liberal exposition."); Stewart v. Welton, 32 Mich. 56, 59-60 (1875) ("Exemption statutes are remedial, and have not been strictly, but liberally construed for the purpose of carrying out the wise and hu......
-
In re Sustaita
...they should generally be liberally construed "for the purpose of carrying out the wise and humane objections in view." Stewart v. Welton , 32 Mich. 56, 60 (1875). Yet no matter how tempting it may be to permit a debtor to exempt depository accounts and the money therein under Mich. Comp. La......
-
Turner v. Davidson
...not concerned with the disposition which a debtor makes of his exempt property. Fischer v. McIntyre, 66 Mich. 681, 33 N. W. 762;Stewart v. Welton, 32 Mich. 56;Wilson v. Bartholomew, 45 Mich. 41, 7 N. W. 227;Anderson v. Odell, 51 Mich. 492, 16 N. W. 870;Buckley v. Wheeler, 52 Mich. 1, 17 N. ......