Washburn v. Goodheart
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 88 Ill. 229,1878 WL 9849 |
| Parties | FRANK WASHBURNv.JAMES GOODHEART. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county.
Mr. D. B. LUCAS, for the appellant.
Messrs. HUGHES & MCCART, for the appellee.
This was trespass, by appellant against appellee, for levying upon, as sheriff, and selling, a team of two horses and their harness, the property of appellant.
The levy and sale were by virtue of an execution issued upon a judgment in favor of John V. Farwell & Co., and against appellant, for some $400.
The principal question is, whether the property was exempt from execution. There is no objection to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the exemption, on any other ground than that it is not shown that the property was personally used by appellant in obtaining the support of his family. Appellant had, shortly before the levy of the execution, been conducting a country store at Shirley, in McLean county, but at that time was residing in Bloomington, and was not engaged in any business. The horses were kept in his stable at Shirley, and he furnished their feed; and he had been in the habit of using them, or having them used, in hauling for himself when he had work of that kind for them, and when they were not thus used, they were driven by one Nelson, who took care of them, and employed them in such jobs of hauling, for compensation, as he or appellant could obtain--Nelson receiving one-half of the amount thus made, after deducting expenses, and appellant the other half.
When the team was levied upon, it was being used by Nelson in hauling potatoes, at Bloomington, under this arrangement.
Among other property exempt by statute from execution, it is provided, “when the debtor is the head of a family, and resides with the same,” there shall be exempt from execution, etc., “one yoke of oxen, or two horses in lieu thereof, used by the debtor in obtaining the support of his family, not exceeding in value $200, and the harness therefor, not exceeding in value $40.” Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 499, §13. Appellee insists that this language should be construed strictly, and that the property, to be exempt, should be personally used by the debtor. This is contrary to the principle of construction applicable to such statutes. Such statutes are not to be construed strictly, but so as to carry out the obvious intention of the legislature in enacting them. Good v. Fogg, 61 Ill. 449.
It often happens that the head of a family is, by reason of physical infirmities, personally unable to take care of and use a team, and it is manifest, in such cases, the reason and policy of the law no less favor the exemption than when the head of a family is free of such misfortune. So, also, it is provided, “when the head of a family shall die, desert or not reside with the same, the family shall be entitled to and receive all the benefits and privileges which are in this act conferred upon the head of a family residing with the same.” Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 499, § 15. It could hardly be contended that it was designed by the legislature that the delicate mother, or the helpless infant, should actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Erich Lantz And Cindy Lantz, 10–B–73859.
...In re Feilchenfeld, 99 F.2d 710, 711 (7th Cir.1938): Finlen v. Howard, 126 Ill. 259, 262, 18 N.E. 560, 561 (1888): Washburn v. Goodheart, 88 Ill. 229, 231 (1878); Burns v. Turner, 193 Ill.App. 172, 175 (1915); McClellan v. Powell, 109 Ill.App. 222, 225 (1902)). In line with the “clear legis......
-
In re Templeton, Bankruptcy No. 92 B 04870.
...In re Feilchenfeld, 99 F.2d 710, 711 (7th Cir. 1938); Finlen v. Howard, 126 Ill. 259, 262, 18 N.E. 560, 561 (1888); Washburn v. Goodheart, 88 Ill. 229, 231 (1878). Barker noted that when an exemption statute might be interpreted favorably or unfavorably with regard to a debtor, federal cour......
-
Barker, Matter of
...In re Feilchenfeld, 99 F.2d 710, 711 (7th Cir.1938); Finlen v. Howard, 126 Ill. 259, 262, 18 N.E. 560, 561 (1888); Washburn v. Goodheart, 88 Ill. 229, 231 (1878); Burns v. Turner, 193 Ill.App. 172, 175 (1915); McClellan v. Powell, 109 Ill.App. 222, 225 (1902). This clear legislative intent ......
-
Rossow v. Peters
...to creditors. A creditor has no interest in the disposition of such property, and is not hindered or delayed by its conveyance. Washburn v. Goodheart, 88 Ill. 229;Moore v. Flynn, 135 Ill. 74, 25 N. E. 844;Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, 4 South. 699,5 Am. St. Rep. 378;Bogan v. Cleveland, 52 Ar......