Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-07-30

ted, that the exemption act of 1S4S could
not apply retrospectlveiy, bnt 1t cOnld not
have escaped the attention of the Court.
nor of two eminent counsel who argued
the case, that IN exemption law of 1913,
applied to debt OF 1916, did operate re-
trospectiveIy as to the debt affected by it,
We have, too, our Legislative construc-
ton, and the practice of our Courts under
it. for the last twenty years. The Revised
Code, adopted in 1856, makes the exemp-
ton of "Ono COW and calf, ten barrels
OF corn or wheat, fifty pounds of bacon,
beef Or pork, or one barrel of fish, all ne
cessary farming tools for one laborer, one
bed, bedstead and covering for every two
members of the family, and such ether
property as the freeholders may deem ne
cessary for the comfort and support of such
debtors family; such other property not
to exceed fifty dollars" apply to all debts
contracted since lst July, 1916. Il is true
that, by the act of 1874. some of these
articles were exempted, but the bulk of
them Were not embraced in any exemption
act until 1913, and yet they were made to
apply to debts as far back as 1st July,
1916.
SO IN 1867 our Legislature passed an
act exempting All necessary farming and
mechanical tools, one work horse, one
yoke of oxen, one cart or wagon, one
milch COW and calf, fifteen head of hogs,
five hundred pounds of pork or bacon, tif-
ty bushels of corn, twenty bushels of wheat,
and household and kitchen furniture not
exceeding $2OOin value"
And this was not restricted to subse-
quent contracts, which is the more signifi-
cant, rs by the same act homestead of
one hundred acres without regard to value
Was restricted to subsequent debts. So
hot r1rSv 70 nnka a1Ax
debts have had the sanction of our Legis-
lature and of this Court, and of the prac-
tice of oil the Courts for the last twenty
years. But then it is said that while that
may have boon so in regard to accessories,
yet our exemptions are too large, they are
not necessaries. Ii it be conceded that
the Legislature has power to exempt any
thing as to existing debts, then what are
necessar,es is a question Tor the Legisla-
turo and not for the Court But our ex-
emption laws heretofore have not been re-
strictcd to mere necesSarios, but have
looked to the "comfort and support of the
debtors family" Rev. Code, Supra And
tho exemptions have been repeatedly and
considerably increased to keep pace with
the change Of manners and customs and
the condition OF our people. It will read
lily appear that tho late exemptions of per
sonal property, in many instances, might
greatly nave exceeded 5000. II the Legis-
lature can exempt personal property, it is
not pretended that it may not in like man
ner exempt real estate--a homestead
It is objected that the Homestead law
ought not to be construed to operate retro
spcctively. We admit that this is the gen
eral rule of construction with IN excep-
ton, however. In favor of remedial, and as
sometimes called beneficial laws. Ali our
laws in regard to remedies and procedure,
have boon lately altered by tho new Code
of Civil Procedure, and made to act retro
spectively. No debt, no matter when con.
tracted, can be sned for and recovered now
as boforo the Code. Even the Courts
themselves have been changed.
BY the act Of 1903, O summary remedy
by motion for judgment on ten days notice
was given against Sheriffs for collecting
money and failing to pay over. A motion
was made against Sheriff for an antece-
dent liability. 1t Was objected, that the
act did not operate retrOspectively. But
this Court held the contrary, saying that
''when an act takes away from o citizen q
Uesed right, its constitutionality may be
inquired into !; but when it alters the
remedy or mode Of proceeding as to
rights previously vested, it certainly rms
in q constitutional channel. The nets arc
beneficial and should be favorablyi con-
strued. Oates Us. Darden, Murphy COL.
So State Legislature may discharge q
party from Imprisonment upon Judgment
in q civil action without infringing the
Constitution for this is but modifca-
ton of the remedy, 3 Story on the Con.
251, Mason vs. Hattie, Is Wheaton, r $40.
A Statute changing the rules of evidence
may be applied to pending suits. Cody
Con. l., 3S1.
So statutory privilege is not vested
right, as exemptions of persons or proper
ty from taxation or exemptions of proper
ty from being seized by attachment or ex-
ecution, Id. 3S3.
So HOmesteads or other property which
are now exempt under the Constitution
might be made liable by subsequent Con-
vention. Id. N.
If, therefore, the Homestead Laws were
not retrospective IN terms, yet, as they are
remedial, beneficial laws, interfering with
no vested rights and arc u part of the fun
damental law of the land, they ought to be
iiberally construed in favor of the person
to be benefited. But we think they do
not depend upon construction, The plain
words are that they shall apply to any
debts oil debts. And it is only by con-
struction. and We think an erroneous con-
SIIuCt1Ou, tuhG tucJ Cdu Uo IcSLLAClcu LO
any particular class of debts.
But really the Homestead and exemp-
ton laws, although affecting antecedent
debt are not Retrospective in the proper
sense of that term. Whnt would be q
prospective Homestead law Evidently
that which should allow Homestead TO be
laid off hereafter. What, as contra distin-
guished from that, would be a retrospec-
tive Homestead law 4? Evidently that
which makes valid Homestead which has
been Ibid off heretofore. The great error is
in supposing that the Homestead law is a
law to defeat debts. That is no part of
the object of the law. The laying off
Homestead is the sole object and is pros
pective altogether If any debt is affected
by it, it is merely incidental. 1t may he
conceded therefore. without affecting the
Homestead, that any law, the purpoee of
which is to defeat u debt is void. But the
Homestead law declares its object upou its
face to be, not to defeat debts, but to allow
to every resident of the State, land his
children and his "wi1ow a home and
tho means of living, if they have them
1t is O question, not OF defeating debts
bnt in the language OF Chief Justice fancy,
" it is question of policy and humanity,
which every civilized Community rccnlate tes