Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Vt. 346

Carty v. Drew

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided January 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1874-01-15

Trespass and trover for a harness, brought to the city court of Burlington. Trial by the court, Tyler, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. The court rendered judgment for the defendant to recover his costs; to which the plaintiff excepted. cited Laws of 1866, No. 39, § 1; Leavitt v. Metcalf, 2 Yt. 342 ; Mundell v. Hammond, 40 Yt. 641; Allen v. Thompson, 45 Yt. 472. cited Laws of 1866, swpra, and Fry v. Canfield, 4 Yt. 9.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““When a class of property is exempt, such as ‘suitable apparel, bedding, tools, arms, and articles of household furniture; such as may be necessary for upholding life,’ the courts take care that the beneficial purposes of the Legislature are carried into execution, and give the statute the most liberal construction. But when a specific article is exempt, the court cannot extend the statute by construction to another and different article.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kennedy v. Hills

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1949

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

3018741880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

¶2The defendant, as sheriff, attached plaintiff’s harness. The plaintiff claims it was exempt from attachment under the statute. The plaintiff was a butcher, furnished and distributed meat to his customers in the city of Burlington, used and needed the harness in his business, and had no other.

¶3The statute, p. 923, Gen. Sts., has ever been liberally construed for the benefit of poor debtors. When a class of property is exempt, such as “ suitable apparel, bedding, tools, arms, and articles of household furniture ; such as may be necessary for upholding life,” the courts take care that the beneficial purposes of the legislature are carried into execution, and give the statute the most liberal construction. But when a specific article is exempt, the court cannot extend the statute by construction to another and different article. This court has decided that a wagon is not exempt, and counsel concede that the harness must take its place with the wagon.

¶4The judgment below is affirmed.

/46/vt/346 · .json · Public domain