Tuttle v. Strout

• Decision Date: 01 January 1862
• Citation: Tuttle v. Strout, 7 Minn. 374 (Minn. 1862)
• Parties: CALVIN A. TUTTLE vs. RICHARD STROUT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

7 Minn. 374

CALVIN A. TUTTLE vs. RICHARD STROUT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal from judgment of the district court, Hennepin County.

Strout, as sheriff, levied an execution upon personal property of plaintiff, within the class of exempt property. The judgment upon which the execution issued, was recovered upon a debt due as wages for work and labor.

Points and authorities for respondent: —

1. Should the court hold the whole law of 1858, including the exception, to be constitutional, then the decision of the court below should be sustained as to wagon and harness, as the law of 1858 repeals only so much of pre-existing laws as should be inconsistent with the provisions thereof; and the wagon and harness being exempt under a pre-existing law, this plaintiff would be entitled to the possession thereof. But so much of the law of

1858, as makes an exception in favor of a certain class of creditors, is unconstitutional, as being in direct conflict with sec. 27, art. 4, Constitution of Minnesota. The language, "any debt or liability," means all debts and liabilities, and must be so construed. The legislature, having acted under and in pursuance of the constitutional provision, must act in accordance with its true intent and meaning; and that portion of any law which conflicts with the constitution, or goes beyond any constitutional restrictions, must be declared null. But it is claimed that the whole act of 1858 is unconstitutional (or at least all that portion of it which exempts from attachment and levy, personal property), as embracing more than one subject. Minn. Const. art. 4, § 27. But it clearly comes within the intent and meaning of the constitution, as the whole act is in relation to property exempt from attachment and levy, and it is immaterial whether it is called "An act for a homestead exemption," or "An act exempting certain property from attachment and levy of execution," as either clearly indicates the whole subject of legislation, which is all that is intended by that section of the constitution. The whole subject has been examined and passed upon in the case of Board of Supervisors of Ramsey Co. v. Heenan, 2 Minn. [330].

O. C. Merriman, for appellant.

J. S. & D. M. Demmon, for respondent.

EMMETT, C. J.

The questions presented for our consideration in this action involve the constitutionality of the act entitled "An act for a homestead exemption," passed March 12, 1858. Each party urges a constitutional objection. The plaintiff claims that that portion of the act which excepts from the exemption provided, debts or liabilities for wages due to clerks, laborers, or mechanics, is in direct conflict with section 12 of the bill of rights, which directs that "a reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale, for the...