Case Name: Nathaniel Dailey versus John May
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1809-05
Citations: 4 Tyng 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Nathaniel Dailey versus John May.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
* Nathaniel Dailey versus John May.
Implements of husbandry used in tilling the land, are not within the statute of 1805, c. 100., exempting the tools of a debtor from attachment and execution.
Trespass against the defendant, a deputy sheriff, for taking the wheels of a cart, an ox-yoke and bows, staple and cops and pin, the property of the plaintiff.
In a case stated for the opinion of the Court, it was agreed that the chattels mentioned were the property of the plaintiff, and were taken from him by the defendant, by virtue of an execution which he then held against the plaintiff; that the defendant was a deputy sheriff duly qualified; and that the said chattels were all duly advertised and sold by the defendant, and the proceeds thereof applied to the discharge of the said execution.
If the Court should be of opinion that the said chattels are by law exempted from attachment, and that an action of trespass can be maintained against the deputy sheriff for taking them, the defendant agreed to be defaulted; otherwise the plaintiff was to become nonsuit.
Rice, for the plaintiff,
cited and relied upon the statute of 1805, c. 100. $ 1., by which, among other things, the tools of any debtor, necessary for his trade or occupation, are altogether exempted from attachment and execution. The chattels mentioned in tire declaration were the tools of the plaintiff, and necessary for his occupation as a husbandman.
Todd, for the defendant,
said that a statute, which is to take away a remedy given by the common law, is to be construed strictly . But it must be a liberal construction indeed, which should suppose the tools of a farmer necessary to his occupation, when it must be presumed, from the case itself, that his farm was already gone from him.
4 Bac. Abr. Title Statute, 1. 6.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Parsons, C. J.
The question submitted by the case [ * 314 ] is, whether or not the chattels mentioned in the * plaintiff's writ are by law protected from seizure on execution issued against the plaintiff. The law relied on is the statute of 1805, c. 100., in which it is enacted that, among other articles, the tools of any debtor, necessary for his trade or occupation, shall be exempted from attachment and execution.
The chattels in this case are the wheels of a cart, and part of the gear to be used in moving it with oxen. The case does not state that they were the tools of the plaintiff, necessary for his trade or occupation. Very clearly, the case as stated does not bring the plaintiff within the provisions of the statute; and the defendant must have judgment.
If the Court could presume that the chattels seized were implements of husbandry necessary for the plaintiff in tilling his land, yet the plaintiff must fail; for tools of a man's trade or occupation do not include the implements of husbandry, used by the husbandman in tilling his farm. For in no correct sense can oxen or horses be considered as husbandry tools; and it would be preposterous to admit that the legislature would extend the protection of the statute to the cart and plough, and their gear, and leave the cattle, without which they would be of no use, to be seized upon execution .
Buckingham vs. Billings, 13 Mass. 82. — Howard vs. Williams, 2 Pick. 80.