Craft v. Curtiss — 25 How. Pr. 163

Majority

p. 163

SUPREME COURT.

James Craft, appellant agt. Selden E. Curtiss and others, respondents.

Headnote

Property of a householder, which is exempt hy the law of 1842, is liable for the purchase money of other property also exempt by that law. (This seems to be adverse to Hickox agt. Fay, 36 Barb., 9 .)

p. 164

Erie General Term, Buffalo,

May, 1863.

Present, Justices Davis, Grover and Hoyt.

This was an appeal from an order made by the county judge of Genesee county, in proceedings supplementary to execution, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a receiver of the property of the defendant Curtiss.

George Bowen, for appellant.

W. T. Bliss, for respondents.

The evidence taken before the referee showed that the defendant was the owner of a span of horses and harness worth less than $250 ; that he was a farmer, and used his teatn carrying on a .farm ; that it was the only team he had, and was necessary for him in the cultivation of the farm. He also had a family for which he provided.

It also appeared that the judgment, on which the proceedings were predicated, was recovered upon a promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff, upon the purchase of another span of horses, some five years ago, which were also exempt by the act of 1842. The only question presented on this appeal was, whether property exempt by the law of 1842, was liable for the purchase money of other property also exempt by that law. The court held that it was, and reversed the order of the county judge, with $10 costs.