Case ID: cow_2/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Elizabeth Vrooman and others, against Haines.
    A female lessor of the plaintiff in an action of ejectment, is not exempt from an attachment for non-payment of the defendant’s costs ; where they do not exceed 50 dollars.
    The statute, exempting females from imprisonment on execution, does not apply to such a case.
    A motion was made for an attachment against Elizabeth Vrooman, one of the lessors of the plaintiff, for non-payment of the defendant’s costs, which had been taxed on a verdict in his favor at $33 50.
    Her counsel objected, that the lessor being a female is not subject to arrest and imprisonment for costs, incurred as a lessor, unless they amount to more than 50 dollars. He relied upon the provision in the 34th section of the act for the amendment of the law (1 R. L. 527,) exempting females from imprisonment upon civil execution for any recovery which does not exceed that sum. Attachments are in the nature of civil executions, (5 John. Rep. 115,) and the legislature so consider them in the act for relief of debtors, &c. (1 R. L. 348, s. 1.)
   Curia.

We think the statute, relied upon, does not apply to this case. It is that no female person shall be imprisoned upon execution in any civil action for debt or damages, in which the debt or damages shall not, exclusive of costs, exceed 50 dollars. The terms made use of do not reach the case; and the consequence of applying them to an attachment for costs against a female lessor, would be to deprive the defendant of all remedy. An attachment is the only process by which the costs can be collected. The law does not give an execution against the goods, so that both person and property would be exempt in all cases where the costs are not more than 50 dollars. This never could have been the intention of the legislature. Indeed, they have given a construction to the first section of the act for the relief of debtors with respect to the imprisonment of their persons, (1 R. L. 348,) the phraseology of which is nluch like this section ; which shows that they never could have meant an absolute. exemption. In 1813, (sess. 36, ch. 203, s. 49,) they passed an act declaring that nothing in the first section of the act for the relief of debtors, &c., should be constructed to embrace the imprisonment of the plaintiff or the lessors of the plaintiff for costs only. If there had otherwise being any doubt upon our minds, it would have been removed by this declaratory law. We are clear that this lessor is not exempt from the process of attachment, either by the terms or policy of the statute.

Motion granted.