Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1875-12-31
From f1e HTfiSJgfg 7elegrapa.l J
aSINpORTANT OPINION.
vhe Three Hundred Dollar Law.

the benefit OF the act OF lS49, eHemptlng
personal property from levy and sale and
securing to The debtor the remainder, either
in land or money. to make up The Gtiiclen-
cy:
In the matter.of the distriDatlon of The
money arising from the sale Of EVhralm
Ney's property.
Per Cu1idm, Exceptions have been ia
zen to the report OF the auditor in this case
so far as relates to the money arising from
the sale of Ney's land. No complaint is
made as 90 the personal effects. From the
report and record the following state of
facts is presented. \ ii. ia. No. /, OF
April term, 1875, was placed in the hands
of the Sheriff against Ney on the 2lst OF
January, 1879, on which 4 levy was made
on all his property, real aud personal, on
the 22d Of February following. On the
same day notice IN writing was served on
the Sheriff in these words: III. Sheater,
Sheriff Of Dauphin county, you are hereby
notified that | claim the benefit OF the act
OF Assembly OF 1S49, exempting property
from levy and sale TO the amount OF three
hundred dollars. February ,, 1870. Eph-
rain Ney." The Sheriff appointed three
appraisers, who proceeded to value person
ally to the amount Of S6I 1G, which was
returned 10 the debtor, and determined
that the real estate would not divide with
out prejudice, etc, and therefore requests
that the balance of $500 be paid in money,
and valued the same at 1924 90. The
land was condemned by an inquest, sold
bv the Sheriff on a ven. cx. for S410, the
money brought into court for distribution,
OF which $3.50 "a is claimed by Ney to
make up his $500.
Two questions were raised before the
auditor.
|. 1t is alleged and some proof taken to
show that the real estate could have been
divided, and portion of the balance OF
$500, set apart for Ney.
This evidence was entirely inadmssibe
as the case was presented before the audi
tor. In the first place the appraisers would
not be permitted to contradict their re-
ports as made to the Sheriff, and returned
by him to court. 1t became part OF the
Sheriff 8 return and cannot be contradict
ed or gainsaid in that way.
,. The only remedy is BY an application
to the court to set aside the report Of the
appraisers, as done on an improper or
fraudulent valuation. 1t cannot be indi-
rectly inquired into before the auditor, who
has no power over the subject. The main
question is the one principally considered
by the auditor, notice OF the defendants
claim, as made to the sheriff and reported
by him, in such form as would entiile Ney
to claim a portion of the money in court
to make up his $500 Ou: of the real estate.
The auditor has carefully considered the
subject in the light of the earlier reported
eases, to which his attention has been
mainly directed, where it is certainly init
mated that the party must express his de-
termination 10 take land, if capable of di-
vision, and can only get his money from
the necessity of a sale, because it will not
divide. The exact form of notice Is not
not prescribed by the statute, nor is it
clearly set forth in the cases cited. IL it
had been we may probably suppose it
would haze been adhered TO on the princi-
pie of stare deciSjS, More mature reiec-
ton and the habits OF society have caused
a relaxation of what we might infer was
/ intended by those earlier cases, though in
reality they all turned on other points. As
| q general rule | think that old law, like old
wine is better than new. In this instance
the new is preferable. In Diehl VS.. IIol-
( Der, 3 Wright 213, at pages PIG, 217. Mr..
/ Justice Woodward says: The testimony
/ was that HOlher warned the defendant not
+ to sell, that he claimed this under the
. $500 law, that hO claimed IT Tor his family.
The court held this a sufficient demand.
We think it was. The statute has not pre-.
scriSed the form of demand, and it would
be very adverse to the spirit Of the statute
! to hold debtor TO any technical accuracy
IN stating his demand. \ demand or no.
tice there must be. but any words to ap.
prise the officer that the statutory exemp.
ton is the thing claimed are sufficient
BY the notice served in the present case
the officer was fully apprised Of the delen.
dant's demand, and what he claimed and
desired. We find him accordingly select.
lug appraisers they valueing the personal
property selected by the debtor, determin.
! inc that the real estate would not divide
and fixing its value. The notice given was
fully understood and did its work as prov
ed by the result. Again in Bowman vs.
Smiley, Z Casey. at page 227, Mr.. Justice
Strong says, after stating that the request
was sufficient. The proof was that lie
! (the defendant met the sheriff on the pub
lie square and told him that he claimed
the $500 law. If the act had required the
request to be made in writing, and at
the sherif's Office, il might have made the
process more convenient and given rise to
! less litigation. But the act makes no such
requisltion, and we cannot legislate even to
! improve an act of assembly. That the
debtor did not employ the precise lam
guage of the act is Of no consequence, his
! demand was of like signilication.
In KOhler vs.. Bucher, ii Smith, at page
3S3, Judge Sharswood says: There is
! no prescribed form for an election to retain
by debtor. 1t was enough that it was
made TO the ofc er in a way that he could
not, or ought not, to misunderstood it,"
In the present case the notice was IN
writing. and in sufficient form to apprisC
the officer Of the deiendants's claim. We
are Of opinion after the most careful ex'
animation which the hurried state Of Oul
business would enable lie 10 give, that the
/ auditor fell into an error in excluding Ney
from participating in The money claimed
to the amount of $500 in all, including his
personal effects, and the sum Of s23j y
is directed to be paid to Ephraim Ney, out
| of the money in court and the IeDOrt O