Case Name: Edwin Carruth vs. George Grassie
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1858-10
Citations: 11 Gray 211
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwin Carruth vs. George Grassie.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
Edwin Carruth vs. George Grassie.
A heifer, twenty months old, and which has not begun to give milk, is exempt from execu tian as a cow, under Rev. Sts. c. 97, § 22, cl. 4, if its owner intends to keep it as a cow, and has no other cow.
Replevin of a cow. Trial in the court of common pleas, before Perkins, J., who signed this bill of exceptions :
“ The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he had raised the animal in question from a calf, and was intending to keep it for his cow; that at twenty months old it was sold as his property on an execution issued in due form of law against him, and purchased by the defendant; that the animal first gave milk at about three years old; and that at the time of the levy he had no other cow. Upon this evidence, the plaintiff contended, and the judge instructed the jury, that, if they were satisfied of the facts which the evidence tended to prove, the animal was exempt from the levy of an execution as the debt- or’s only cow. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and to the foregoing instruction the defendant excepts.”
C. G. Stevens, for the defendant,
cited Buckingham v. Billings, 13 Mass. 82; Gibson v. Jenney, 15 Mass. 205 ; Davlin v. Stone, 4 Cush. 359; Freeman v. Carpenter, 10 Verm. 433 ; Blake v. Baker, 41 Maine, 78; Rev. Sts. c. 97, §§ 19, 22, cl. 4; St. 1857, c. 235.
G. F. Hoar, for the plaintiff,
cited Rev. Sts. c. 97, § 22; Webst. Dict. “ Heifer ” ; Richardson v. Buswell, 10 Met. 506; Gibson v. Jenney, 15 Mass. 205; Leavitt v. Metcalf, 2 Verm. 342; Haskill v. Andros, 4 Verm. 609; Dow v. Smith, 7 Verm, 465; Freeman v. Carpenter, 10 Verm. 433; Hill v. Loomis, 6 N. H. 263.

Opinion:
Shaw, C. J.
The object and purpose of the statute are to secure certain articles necessary to the well-being and sustenance of the debtor, his wife and family, from being taken on execution for debt. "When a right is granted, either by an individual, or by a statute, the means of securing the right are aise granted by implication. If it were necessary to the exemption that the animal should be actually giving milk at the time, then almost any cow must be liable to be taken on execution at some time of the year. The court are of opinion that if the debtor has honestly taken a heifer calf with the expectation and purpose of keeping her for a cow, she is within the true and equitable meaning of the statute. Exceptions overruled.