Case ID: nh_70/html/0002-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Young, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hillsborough,
    June, 1899.
    Robinson v. Burke.
    Damages recovered for the conversion'of property exempt from attachment may be reached by trustee process in the hands of the judgment debtor.
    Motion, by Gleason, for stay of execution in Robinson v. Burke. After tlie plaintiff had recovered judgment in this action, which is trover against a deputy sheriff for attaching goods which were exempt from attachment, Gleason, a creditor of Robinson and not a party to any prior proceedings, sued him, summoned Burke as trustee, and moved for stay of execution until his action against Robinson should be determined. Robinson opposed this motion upon the ground that the verdict so far partook of the nature of the property converted as to be itself exempt from attachment. Execution was stayed, and Robinson excepted.
    
      David W. Berkins, for Robinson.
    
      Andrews & Andrews, for Burke.
    
      William W Porbes, for Gleason.
   Young, J.

All property which can be taken on execution can be attached on mesne process. P. S., c. 220, s. 1. At common law, all the debtor’s property, with a few trifling exceptions not material in this case, could be taken on execution, and it follows that all of his property which is not exempted by statute can be taken now. Damages recovered for the conversion of property exempt from attachment are not themselves exempted by statute (P. S., c. 138, s. 1; Ib., c. 220, s. 2; Ib., c. 215, s. 20), and can be reached in the hands of the judgment debtor by trustee process unless they so far partake of the nature of such property as to be exempt for that reason. Generally, the proceeds of such property are not exempt from attachment. Morse v. Towns, 45 N. H. 185; Manchester v. Burns, 45 N. H. 482, 488; Wooster v. Page, 54 N. H. 125; Currier v. Sutherland, 54 N. H. 475, 487; Hall v. Johnson, 64 N. H. 481; Brookfield v. Sawyer, 68 N. H. 406. This case is no exception, for ho good reason can be given why one rule should be applied to damages recovered for the conversion by third parties of property exempt from attachment, and another rule to damages recovered upon a policy of insurance covering such property. Wooster v. Page, supra.

Tlie reason why the plaintiff in the original action against Robinson cannot take the proceeds of this judgment to satisfy his debt, is that no one will be allowed to profit by his own wrong and do by indirection that which he could not do in a direct proceeding, .and not because the judgment so far partakes of the nature of the property as to be itself exempt from attachment.

Exception overruled.

Peas lee, J., did not sit: the others concurred.