Case ID: nh_59/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stanley, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hall v. Nelson & a.
    
    Whether a wagon is exempt from attachment as a farming tool, or a tool of the debtor’s occupation, is a question of fact.
    Trespass, for the caption and conversion of a wagon. The defendants justified under an attachment in July, 1.879. Facts found by a referee.
    The wagon was the only one owned by the plaintiff. He used it for ordinary family purposes, and in 1878 and 1879 he used the hind wheels in connection with a rack and other wheels to draw the hay cut on his farm to the barn, and in harvesting other crops. The plaintiff’s main business was that of a showman, and his principal use of the wagon was to transport himself and the views and apparatus illustrating his astronomical lectures about the country. When the wagon was attached, the plaintiff objected, and claimed that it was exempt from attachment.
    The referee found for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages, and the court ordered judgment, and the defendants excepted.
    Flanders, for the defendants.
    Shirley, for the plaintiff.
   Stanley, J.

The question at issue was, whether the wagon, when attached, was exempt either as a farming tool, or a tool of the plaintiff’s occupation. This was a question of fact to be determined by the referee upon all the evidence, and the finding for the plaintiff was a finding of every material fact upon which the plaintiff’s right of recovery depended. Allard v. Hamilton, 58 N. H. 416; Noyes v. Patrick, 58 N. H. 618; Rice v. Wadsworth, ante 100; Richards v. Hubbard, ante 158; Gceorge v. Fellows, ante 206.

Exceptions overruled.

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.