exemption

relief from a duty or service.

Immunity; freedom from any charge, duty, burden, or liability. Generally used for exemption from process, which; is a right given by law to a debtor to retain certain property free from execution, attachment, or other process. The property exempt from execution.

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.

Freedom from a general duty or service; iminunity from a general burden, tax or charge. Green v. State, 59 Md. 128, 48 Am. Rep. 542; Koenig v. Railroad Co., 3 Neb. 380; Long v. Converse, 91 U. S. 113, 23 In Ed. 233. A privllege allowed by law to a judgment debtor, by which be may hold property to a certain amount, or certain classes of property, free from all liability to levy and sale on execution or attachment Turrill v. McCarthy, 114 Iowa, 681, 87 N. W. 667; Williams v. Smith, 117 Wis. 142, 93 N. W. 464.

— Exemption laws. Laws which provide that a certain amount or proportion of a debtor's property sball be exempt from execution.

— Exemption, words of. It is a maxim of law that words of exemption are not to be construed to import any liability ,v the maxim expressio unius exclusio altenus, or iis converse, exclusio unius inclusio altenus, not applying to such a case. For example, an exemption of the crown from the bankruptcy act 1869, in one specified particular, would not inferentially subject the crown to that act in any other particular. Brown.

Freedom from a general duty or service; immunity from a general debtor, by which he may hold property toa certain amount, or certain classes of property, free from all liability to levy and sale on exeeution or attachment.

^ The privilege of being excepted, excused, or freed from the operation of a law. Used especially of goods not liable to seizure under the law of distress for rent; •* of merchandise not subject to duties under the internal revenue laws; ' of the property of bankrupts and insolvents excepted from sale under execution laws; ' and of the property of a decedent not subject to administration. Also, the property itself, In the aggregate. > Stone V. Union Sav. Bank, 13 R..L 26 (1880); 8 Ga. 388; 2 Williams, Exec. 946. ^ Caskie v. Harrison, 77 Va. 94 (1882); Peter v. Beverley, 10 Pet. *633, 604 (1836); Wilson's Appeal, 115 Pa. 93 (1887); M'Cormick v. Wright, 79 Va. 533 (1884), cases; 24 Cent. Law J. 147 (1887), cases. '. See generally Williams, Exec; Schouler, Ex;. & Adm., and Wills; 2 Kent, 409; 1 Pars. Contr. 127; Stacy V. Thrasher, 6 How. 58-60 (1848); Hill v. Tucker, 18 id. 466-67 (1851); Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. 337 (1879); Colt v. Colt, 111 id. 581 (1884); Glasgow v. Lipse, 117 id. 333' (1886); 9 Gratt. 559; 21 id. 800, 759. 'i?e Bingham, 32 Vt. 335(1859); Golson v. Holman, Sup. Ct. S. C. (1888); 26 Cent. Law J. 521-22 (1888), cases. 4 See 2 Whart. Ev. Ch. Ill, §§ 95-119; 1 Greenl. Ev. §501; 7W. Va. 413. » L. ex-imere, to take out, remove, free. »3B1. Com. 6. Exempt. Excepted from the burden or operation of law; also, a person so excepted, excused, or relieved. Exemption laws. Specifically, laws which except a part of a debtor's property from seizure on execution, or other process, as not liable to the payment of his debts. This property, In its nature and extent, varies in the different States. In some it extends only to the merest implements of household necessity; in others it includes the library of the professional man, however extensive, and the tools of mechanics;, and in many it embraces the homestead in which the family resides. The creditor, when he parts with the consideration ot his debt, knows that the property so exempt cannot be seized in payment. * Exemption in favor of debtors is favored by liberal interpretations. The exemption law of a State bars an execution on a judgment in favor of the United States." Exemption laws seek to promote the general welfare of society by taking from the head of a family the power to deprive it of certain property by contracting debts which will enable creditors to take such property in execution. Parties ought not, therefore, to be permitted to contravene the policy of the law by contract.^ Waiver of the right, if permitted at all, must be in distinct and unequivocal terms, and not rest upon inference.* "Widow's exemption. For the benefit of the widow and children of a decedent.* See Ageicultdre; Expbessio, Unius, etc.; Heifer; Homestead; Horse; Immujiitt; Implement; Pbitileqe; Tax, 2; Team^Tool; Wagon; Works. EXEQUATOTl. L. Let it be executed, performed, discharged. 1. In French practice, placed at the foot of a judgment obtained in another jurisdiction, authorized execution upon the judgment within the jurisdiction to which it was exemplified. 2. An order issued by the foreign depai-tment of a state to which a consul or commercial agent is accredited, that he be permitted to discharge the duties of his appointment. J Nichols V. Eaton, 91 V. S. 726 (1875), Miller, J. ' Fink V. O'Neil, 106 U. S. 280 (1882), cases; R. S. § 916. 'Kneettle v. Newcomb, 22 N. Y. 249 (1860); Crawford V. Lockwood, 9 How. Pr. 547 (1854); Harper v. Leal, 10 id. 276 (1854). Contfa, Mc Kinney v. Reader, 6 Watts, 34 (1837); Case v. Dunmore,23 Pa. 93 (1854); 24 id. 426; 31 id. 226. « O'NaU V. Craig, 56 Pa. 161 (1867); Commonwealth v. Boyd, ib. 402 (1867). Exemptions of personalty, Kansas cases', 2 Kan. Law J. 146-49 (18S5), cases. ' Huf man's Appeal, 81 Pa. 329 (1876); Nixon's Appeal, Consuls on exhibiting proof of their appointment receive an exequatur, or permission to discharge their functions within the limits prescribed, which permission can be withdrawn for any misconduct.^