Case Name: Richard Mills versus Llewellyn F. Spaulding
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1861
Citations: 50 Me. 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard Mills versus Llewellyn F. Spaulding.
Judges: Bice, Cutting, Davis, Walton and Barrows, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 57–61

Head Matter:
Richard Mills versus Llewellyn F. Spaulding.
Where the “head of a family or householder” claiming the benefit of c. 207, of the laws of 1850, caused his certificate to be recorded after a judgment (for costs) had been entered up against him, the premises described in his certificate will not be exempt from the levy of any execution that may be issued thereon.
And if the debtor so long neglect to pay the judgment that no execution can be issued, and a suit is brought on the judgment, the execution that after-wards issues may be levied on the premises, notwithstanding it includes interest and costs that have accrued after the recording of his certificate of exemption.
On agreed statement oe eacts. Writ oe Entry, to recover a parcel of land in Belgrade, in the county of Kennebec.
The demandant claims title to the premises by virtue of a levy made April 20, 1858, upon an execution in his favor against one- William W. Spaulding, issued from the office of the clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for said county, on a judgment recovered in said Court, March 31, 1858.
On the 28th of June, 1852, said William W. Spaulding was the owner of the' demanded premises, in the actual possession thereof, a householder, and the head of a family : on which day he filed, in the office of the register of deeds for said county, a certificate covering certain premises not exceeding in value the sum of five hundred dollars, of which the demanded premises are a part, therein declaring his wish to hold said premises exempt from attachment and ■levy, or sale on execution."
Said William W. Spaulding remained in possession until April 20th, 1858, and was in the possession of and owned said premises at the time of the demandant’s levy. At the time of the service of the writ in this action, the said Llewellyn E. Spaulding was in the possession and occupation of the demanded premises, as tenant of the said William W. Spaulding.
On the 10th day of January, 1852, said Mills recovered judgment before a justice. of the peace, in said county, against the said William W. Spaulding for costs, from which judgment said Spaulding appealed to the District Court then next to be held at Augusta, in April following — but neglected to enter and prosecute said appeal — and the judgment rendered against him by the magistrate, was, upon due proceedings had, affirmed by said District Court at said April term, 1852, with additional costs.
°In 1858, said Mills sued the last named judgment, and, at the March term of this Court, in that year, recovered judgment for the original judgment and officer’s fees, and costs of suit. This judgment was rendered on March 31st, and the plaintiff's levy made on April 20th, 1858, as above stated.
The tenant defends on the ground that, at the time of the levy, the premises were exempt from attachment as the property of said W. W . Spaulding, by virtue of the statute of 1850, e. 207, and of said Spaulding’s proceedings under the same. The certificate signed by him and filed on the same day in the registry of deeds for the county of Kennebec, is as follows :■—
" Know all men by these presents, that I, William W. Spaulding, of Belgrade, in the county of Kennebec, wishing to avail myself of the benefit of an Act entitled 'An act to exempt homesteads from attachment and levy or sale on execution,’ approved August 29th, 1850, do hereby certify and declare my wish and herein describe the property which I am the owner of, and in actual possession of the same, and wish to hold under the provisions of said Act, exempt from attachment, levy or sale on execution, or so much thereof as shall not exceed in value the sum of five hundred dollars, namely— a certain tract or parcel of land situate in said Belgrade, containing about twenty acres, being my homestead farm, and now occupied by myself and family. For a more particular description, reference is hereby made to a deed from Burleigh Palmer to me, dated some time in the year A. I). 1850. Given under my hand the 28th day of June, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-two.”
Bradbury & Meserve, for the demandant.
F. W. McFadden, for the tenant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Appleton, C. J.
The Act of 1849, c. 135, "to exempt homesteads from attachment and levy or sale on execution," was " to take effect from and after the last day of December next." This statute was repealed by the Act of August, 1850, c. 207.
It*will be perceived that, between the first day of January, 1850, when the Act of 1849, c. 135, went into effect, and the time when the repealing Act of August, 1850, c. 207, became operative, rights of exemption might be acquired.
Those were protected by § 1 of the latter Act. Lawton v. Bruce, 39 Maine, 484.
By c. 207, § 4, of the Acts af 1850, it was provided that " the head of any family, or householder, wishing to avail himself of the benefits of this Act, may file a certificate by him signed, declaring such wish and describing the property, with the register of deeds in the county where the same is situated; and, upon receiving the fees now allowed for recording deeds, such register shall record the same in a book kept by him for that purpose -; and so much of the property in said certificate described as does not exceed the value aforesaid, shall be exempt from seizure or levy on any execution issued on any judgment recovered for any debt contracted jointly or severally, by the person signing said certificate, after the date of the recording thereof; and upon being recorded as aforesaid, the property described in the first section of this Act shall be exempted within the provisions thereof."
This section is prospective in its operation. " The head of any family, or householder," is to file his certificate, the same being recorded, he holds the described property, and to the value specified, " exempt from seizure or levy on any execution issued on any judgment recovered for any debt contracted jointly or severally, by the person signing the certificate, after the date of the recording thereof." The property thus exempted remains, however, liable to seizure or levy, on executions issued on judgments recovered on debts contracted after the Act of 1850 went into effect, and before the date of the recording. Creditors prior to the recording are thus protected. Subsequent creditors cannot complain, for the certificate, when recorded, is notice to all that the real estate therein described is to be, and to remain exempt from seizure or sale on execution. They can no longer give credit upon the faith of property thus made exempt by statute, and, if they do, it is their own folly.
The plaintiff's judgment was recovered April term, 1852. The defendant's certificate was filed June 28, 1852. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action of debt upon his judgment, in which he recovered a new judgment, and, by virtue of the execution issued thereon, he made the levy under which he claims title. But this judgment was not upon a debt contracted " after the date of the recording" of his certificate, and therefore, by § 4, the real estate of the defendant is not exempt from seizure or levy, on the execution issued thereon. The defendant has failed to show his estate exempted from seizure under the ordinary process of law, and his defence fails.
The law gives interest, by way of damage, for the nonpayment of a debt. It was the fault of the defendant that such damages accrued. But, accruing, they became a part of the judgment and follow the same rule as the principal.
So, too, costs are incident to any attempt to enforce by process of law the collection of a debt. The estate not being exempt from the debt, neither is it exempt from the costs, which the defendant, by neglecting to pay what was justly due, has compelled the plaintiff to incur or lose his debt. Defendant defaulted.
Bice, Cutting, Davis, Walton and Barrows, JJ., concurred.