In re Estate of McManus
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Exemption from Execution — Remedial Statutes — Construction.— Statutes exempting personal property from execution are remedial in character, and are to be liberally construed, as being intended to protect the debtor, and enable him to follow bis vocation, so as to earn a support for himself and family.
Id. — Implements—Tools — Construction of Code. — The term “implements, ” as used in subdivision 4 of section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that “ the tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan necessary to carry on his trade ” shall be exempt from execution, has a broader signification than the term “ tools,” and includes any instru- ' meat needed and used for the purpose of carrying on his trade or business.
Id.—Jeweler’s Safe — Insolvency.—A jeweler’s safe owned and used in the business of a jeweler and watch-repairer is exempt from execution, and should be set apart as such to him in proceedings in insolvency.
Belcher, C. C. The respondent, L. M. McManus, was engaged in the business of a jeweler and watch-repairer, and while so engaged was adjudged to be an insolvent debtor. He owned and used in his business a jeweler’s safe, which the court, against the objections of certain creditors, set apart to him as property exempt from execution.
The objecting creditors and the assignee of the estate appeal from the order, and contend that it was not authorized by law, and should therefore be reversed.
At the hearing, the respondent was called as a witness, [293]and “ testified, in substance, that he was a jeweler and watch-repairer, and is engaged in that trade or business as a means of support for himself and family, and that without the use of said safe said business cannot be prosecuted by him to any profitable end; that it is a necessary and useful article in conducting said business; that without the use of said safe his customers would not leave their jewelry and watches with him to be repaired.” Another witness was also called, and testified: 61 That he is a practical watch-maker and jeweler; that a safe similar to the one mentioned is an article without which the business of jeweler and watch-maker and watch-repairer cannot be prosecuted to any profitable end, and that such a safe is a necessary and useful article in carrying on the business of a jeweler and watch-repairer; that without the use of such a safe very few customers will leave their jewelery or watches with the artisan to be repaired.”
This was all the testimony offered, and upon it the court made its findings and order as follows: “That the said safe is an article without the aid of which the business of petitioner as jeweler and watch-maker cannot be prosecuted to any profitable end, and that said safe is necessary to and in actual use by the petitioner in prosecuting his said business. Wherefore it is hereby ordered that the said safe be set apart, and that the same is hereby set apart, for the use of said insolvent debtor, and that the same shall not be subject to be applied to the payment of his debts.”
Section <80 of the Insolvent Act makes it the duty of the court having jurisdiction of insolvency proceedings to exempt and set apart for the use and benefit of the insolvent such real and personal property as is by law exempt from execution. And section 690, subdivision 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “ the tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan necessary to carry on his trade” shall be exempt from execution.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)