Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott

154 N.E. 62, 22 Ohio App. 516, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 268, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 380

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 1926

Docket7593

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 154 N.E. 62 (Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott, 154 N.E. 62, 22 Ohio App. 516, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 268, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 380 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

Section 11725 GC. as amended reads as follows: — “Every person who lives with and is the head and sole support of a family, and every widow, may hold property exempt from execution, attachment or sale- - -.

(5) The tools and implements of the debtor-necessary for carrying on his or her profession, trade, or business, including agriculture -.”

The question to be decided in this case is whether an attorney at law is entitled to the exemptions in case of levy of execution for indebtedness under the above section.

In the Cleveland Municipal Court a motion was made and sustained, declaring .Talcott an attorney at law entitled to exemptions where the property involved is a law library and other chattels in his law office necessary for the carrying on of his profession. Error was prosecuted and it was argued that books and office furniture cannot be denominated and designated as “tools and implements,” as from their very nature, they imply chattels which are all mechanical contrivances in their nature. The Court of Appeals held:

1. A more liberal view than this is war-rantable under the construction which is applicable ot this statute; and that they are used in the sense of instrumentalities which are necessary for carrying on the profession.

2. The purpose of the statute is not to deprive persons designated therein of the us of the instrumentalities by which a living is madé, for that would be contrary to public policy and would deprive the head of a family for using those means necessary for the support of his family.

3.When the 'statute in question was amended, the work “profession” was inserted; and obviously the law is a profession and a library is a necessary appendage to the proper and successful practice thereof..

Judgment therefore affirmed and judgment for defendant in error.

(Levine, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI