Exemption

The right given by law to a debtor to retain a portion of his property without its being liable to execution at the suit of a creditor, or to a distress for rent. In general, the sheriff may seize and sell all the property of a defendant which he can find, except such as is exempted by the common law or by statute. The common law was very niggardly of these exceptions: it allowed only the necessary wearing apparel; and it was once holden that if a deem times, with perhaps a prodigal liberality, a considerable amount of property, both real and personal, Is exempted from execution by the statutes of; the Bi states; L9 Am. L. Keg. 1; 4 So. L. Rev. N. s, 1; In re Radway, 3 Hughes 609, Fed. Oas. No. 11,523; Carlton v. Watts, 82 N. C. f 212: Mapp v. Long, 62 Ga. 568; Singletary v. Singletary, 31 La. Ann. 374; Rutledge v. Rutledge, 8 Bax. (Tenn.) 33; Creath v. Dale, 69 Mo. 41; Vandeshorst v. Bacon, 38 Mich. 669, 31 Am. Rep. 32 S; Murphy v. Harris, 77 Cal. 194, 19 Pac. 377; In re Robb, 99 Cal. 202, 33 Pac. 890, 37 Ani. St. Rep. 48; Carter v. Davis, 6 Wash. 327, 33 Pac. 833; Bean v. Ins. Co., 54 Minn. 366, 56 N. W. 127; Hamberger v. Marcus, 157 Pa. 133, 27 Atl. 681, 37 Am. St. Rep. 719; and there is now hardly a state or nation which has not by statute made certain exemptions designed as a protection for the family; Woodward v. Murray, 18 Johns. ' (N. Y.) 403; and such statutes are to be liberally construed; Butner v. Bowser, 104 Ind. 259, 3 N. E. 889; Kuntz v. Kinney, 33 Wis. 510; Good v. Fogg, 01 111. 449, 14 Am. Rep. 71; Carty v. Drew, 4(5 Yt. 346; Allison v. Brookshire, 38 Tex. 199; Seeley v. Gwillim, 40 Conn. 100. Some of the exemptions are the following: household furniture; Towns v. Pratt, 33 N. II. 345, 66 Am. Dec. 726; Tanner v. Billings, 18 Wis. 163, 86 Am. Dec. 755; Dunlap v. Edgerton, 30 Vt. 224; Haswell v. Parsons, 15 Cal. 266, 76 Am. Dec. 4S0; Ileidenheimer v. Blumenkron, 56 Tex. 308; tools of trade; Atwood v. De Forest, 19 Conn. 513; Enscoe v. Dunn, 44 Conn. 93, 26 Am. Rep. 430; Boston Belting Co. v. Ivens & Co., 2S La. Ann. 695; Wicker v. Comstock, 52 Wis. 315, 9 N. W. 25; work horses; Tishomingo Sav. Inst. v. Young, 87 Miss. 473, 40 South. 9, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 693, 112 Am. St. Rep. 454, 6 Ann. Cas. 776; Forsyth v. Bower, 54 Cal. 639; Jaquith v. Scott, 63 N. H. 5, 56 Am. Rep. 476; Steele v. Lyford, 59 Yt. 230, S Atl. 736 (but this will not include high bred horses used for pleasure and to drive to and from business; Tishomingo Sav. Inst. v. Young, 87 Miss. 473, 40 South. 9, 3 L. R. A. [N. S.J 693, 112 Am. St. Rep. 454, 6 Ann. Cas. 776): the interest of a legatee in lauds, until the court has held it to be a charge on such, although the legacy is given with a view that it shall be such a charge; Hiscock v. Fultou, 63 Hun 621, 17 N. Y. Supp. 408; curtesy initiate; Bruce v. Nicholson, 109 N. C. 202, 13 S. E. 790, 26 Am. St. Rep. 562; property held in trust; Mosher v. Neff, 33 Neb. 770, 51 X. W. 138; the bridge of a public corporation; Overton Bridge Co. v. Means,:::; Neb, 857, 51 X. W. 2P>, 29 Am. St. Rep. 514; blackberries while growing; Sparrow v. Pond, 19 Minn. 412, 52 N. W. 36, 16 L. R. A. 103, 32 Am. St. Hep. 571; trade-mark, apart from the articles it has served to identify; Prince Mfg. Co. v. Paint Co.. 20 X. Y. Supp. 462; a of lands conveyed; Willis & Bro. v. inervill Civ. App. '■■ 9, 22 -; W. the interest of a ccatui under a trust Tor maim I 1 support; Bn v. Raynolds, 59 Fed. 92; a.:;7"; U interest of the grantor in property trail erred in fraud of cred v. Perkins, Ml X. Y. l, 35 N. I emption laws are inapplicable I i citizen to the Onib Howell, 9 Fed. 674, rj. S. 280, 1 Sup. i Exemption laws are not a pan • tract; they are part of the remedy and subject to the law of the forum; I I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm. 174 F. S. 710, 17 S Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1 1 1 I: Mineral Point R. Co. v. Barron, 83 111. 365: Carson v. 1: S8 Tenn. 646, 13 S. W. 588, 8 L. R. A. 412, 17 Am. St. Rep. 921; Conley v. Chilcote, S, Ohio St. 320; Albrecht v. Treitschke, 17 Neb. 205, 22 N. W. 418; Moore v. R. Co., 43 la. 385; Broadstreet v. Clark, 65 la. ';7<>. 22 N. W. 919; Stevens v. Frown, 20 W. \'a. 4:.". That a debt is exempt from judicial pr< in the state where it was created will not make it exempt in another jurisdiction. The exemption does not follow the debt as an incident thereto; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 17 Sup. Ct. m, 4:; L. Ed. 1144. See, generally, Bankruptcy; Distress; Execution; Homestead; Family; Tools; Tax.