Case Name: MEYERS, Appellant, v. COLEMAN, Sheriff, Respondent
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1923-02-20
Citations: 46 S.D. 244
Docket Number: File No. 5148
Parties: MEYERS, Appellant, v. COLEMAN, Sheriff, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
MEYERS, Appellant, v. COLEMAN, Sheriff, Respondent.
(192 N. W. 184.)
(File No. 5148.
Opinion filed February 20, 1923.)
1. Exemptions — Claim of Exemption. — Wife May Claim Exemption, Where Husband Fails To Bo So.
Where a husband fails to assert his right to exemption, his wife may make such claim.
2. Exemptions — Mandamus—Claim of Exemptions — Claim of Exemption Within 02 Bays From Bate of Levy Made Within Reasonable Time.
A claim of exemption, by the wife when husband has failed to- make claim, within 22 days from the date of th-e- levy, under execution, was made within a reasonable time, and entitled her ■to writ of mandamus requiring the sheriff to restore the property seized.
Appeal from, Circuit 'Court, Tripp County; Hon. N. D. Burci-i, Judge.
Manadamus by Lillian Meyers against Thomas Coleman, Sheriff of Tripp (County. Judgment for -defendant, and relator appeals.
Reversed, with directions to issue peremptory writ.
W. J. Hooper, of Gregory, for Appellant.
Buffington & Prchal, of Dallas, for Respondent.
Appellant cited: Chesney v. Francisco, 12 Neb. 626, 12 N. W. 94; Robinson v. Hughes (Ind. Sup.), 20 N. E. 220; Rice v. Nolan, 33 Kan. 28, 5 Pac. 437; 'Daniels v. 'Hamilton, 52 Ala. 108; Thompson on Homestead! & Exemptions, 809; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hollenshead ('Wash.), 98 Pac. 749; Boylston v. Rankin (Ala.), 21 So. 995; Stout v. Price, 56 N. E. 857; 'Commonwealth v. Burnette, 44 So'. 960; Hartman v. Wood, 67 N. Y. S. 1046; State v. Allen, 35 S. E. 990; Noyes v. Belding, 5 S. D. 603; State v. Emmerson, 74 Mo. 607.
Respondent cited: Noyes et al vl Belding et al, 5 S. D. 603; Meyer v. Beaver, 9 S. D. 168; First National Bank v. Lee, 141 N. W. 716; Angelí v. Johnson, 2 N. W. 387; Moffitt v. Adams, 14 N. W. 88; Zielke v. Morgan, 7 N. W. 283.

Opinion:
DILLON, J.
The sole question before this court: Was the claim for exemption on the part of the wife made within a reasonable time?
The husband having failed to assert the right, the wife was entitled to make such, claim. She made it within 22 days from the date of the levy. We hold that the claim was made within a reasonable time.
On the authority of Goodland v. Smejkal (S. D.), 190 N. W. 1017, this cause is reversed, with directions that the peremptory writ of mandamus be issuied, requiring the sheriff to restore to the relator the property claimed as exempt.
Note — Reported in 192 N. W. 184. See American Key-Numbered Digest, (1) Exemptions, Key-No. 118, 25 'C. J. Sec. 23'2; 11 R. C. L. 547; (2) Exemptions, Key-No. 119(1), 25 C. J. Secs. 235-240.