Case ID: ala_45/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "B. E. SAEEOLD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BREWER’S ADM’R vs. GRANGER et al.
    [action against sheriff and his bondsmen, foe wrongful and tortious SEIZURE OF MERCHANDISE. ]
    X. Scem/pt property ; what may be claimed as. — Articles or merchandise in a store, where they are kept for sale, to the extent of one thousand dollars, are exempt from levy and sale under legal process, at the option of the debtor, under section 2884 of the Bevised Code.
    Appeal from Circuit Court of Mobile.
    Tried before Hon. John Elliott.
    The appellee, Granger, sheriff of Mobile county,'levied an execution, in 1869, on the partnership property of C. Brewer & Co. C. Brewer claimed, in a proper manner, his share of the property as exempt from execution, under section 2881 of the Revised Code. Notwithstanding the interposition of this claim, the sheriff refused to return it to him. Brewer thereupon brought this suit against him and the sureties on his official bond.
    The defendants pleaded that the property was merchandise kept for sale for profit, and not for the use of the plaintiff ’s family. A demurrer to this plea was overruled, and the plaintiff was nonsuited ; hence this appeal.
    C. W. Rapier, for appellant,
    W. Boíles, contra.
    
    [No briefs came into Reporters hands.]
   B. E. SAEEOLD, J.

Prior to 1867, the property exempt from execution consisted of articles specified by the statutes. They were such as were used by the family, and deemed by the law most indispensable. Nevertheless, the right of the family to exchange them for other articles of like kind, also exempt from levy and sale, was recognized. In 1867, the legislature added to the list of exempted property twelve hundred dollars worth of real estate and one thousand dollars worth of personal property.

In the absence of any provision for the selection of this property, it must be chosen by the family. The exemption applies to money, as well as to any other description of property, and the use to be made of the property depends upon its adaptability. There is no restriction upon the right of the family to make the best use of it they can. If they prefer to use it as merchandise, anything they may get in exchange for it would likewise be exempt to the value of one thousand dollars. The demurrer ought to have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.