Hyperlawhypertext legal database Harthouse v. Rikers 8 N.Y. Super. Ct. 606

← Cases

Harthouse v. Rikers

8 N.Y. Super. Ct. 606 1 Duer 606 Court N.Y. Super. Ct. Decision date 1853-10-23 English

Delivered by Bosworth, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 606
Harthouse v. Rikers.
(At Chambers,
Oct. 23, 1853.)

Headnote

Where, on examination, supplementary to execution, it appeared that the judgment debtor was a public carman, was a house-holder, and had a family for which he provided, and had “ one horse, a harness, and cart,” held that they were exempt from execution, and came within the definition of the word team, as used in the act of 1842, ch. 167
Judgment was had against the plaintiff for costs of the action. On proceedings supplementary to execution, the examination disclosed that he .was a public carman, was a house-holder, and had a family for which he provided, and had “ one horse, a "harness, and cart,” which were exempt from execution, provided they came within the proper definition, of the word “ team.” Defendant insisted that the cart was not exempt, moved for a receiver, and that the cart be delivered over to the receiver.

(On consultation with all the other judges of the court.) A team is “ two or more horses, oxen, or other beasts, harnessed together to the same vehicle for drawing, as to a coach, chariot, wagon, cart, sled, sleigh, and the like.— Webster’s Die., unabridged. Team-work is “work done®by a team, as distinguished from personal labor.”—Id.

The object of exempting the team, of a house-holder, was doubtless to enable him to do team-work. Horses, without harness or vehicle, would be of but little service relatively. Morse v. Keyes, 6 How. P. R. 18 , 21, concedes that a “ harness” is within the meaning of the word team, but not the

p. 607
vehicle to which the team may he harnessed. This concession seems to be a consequence of the definition given by the court of the word “ team.” The court said: “ A team is said to be two or more horses or oxen harnessed together.” I think Webster’s definition better accords with the common understanding of the meaning of the word.

However inartificial the expression may be, yet the phrase, “ a one-horse team,” is often used, and expresses a clear idea to the common mind. Unless the word “ team,” as used in the act of 1842, ch. 157, includes that, then, a single horse, harness, and cart, would not be exempt, though used together by a house-holder as a team, to do team-work, and though necessary for the support of his family.

I think a team, within the meaning of that act, means horses or oxen harnessed to a vehicle, and includes the three, and that though there be but a horse, harness,' and cart, instead of two horses, harness, and a wagon, they are exempt from execution, if of less value than' $150, and are necessary for the owner’s support, he* being a house-holder, or having a family for which he provides.

Under a contrary construction, the act, so far as it exempts a team, would have practically no application to this city. The “ team” of a carman, would not be a team within the meaning of the act.

I think it is exempt from execution, and the motion for a receiver, and that the cart of the plaintiff be delivered to such receiver, is denied. (Vide Hutchinson v. Chamberlin, 11 Leg. Ob. 248.)

Cases cited