Haswell v. Parsons

15 Cal. 266
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 15 Cal. 266 (Haswell v. Parsons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haswell v. Parsons, 15 Cal. 266 (Cal. 1860).

Opinion

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin,J. concurring.

This is an action to recover the value of certain household furniture and other property, alleged to have been exempt from forced sale, which was seized and sold under execution, at the direction of the defendant, upon a judgment recovered by him against the plaintiff. The furniture was the remnant of what had previously been used in keeping a hotel, and, according to the finding of the Court, was no more than was sufficient for the family of the plaintiff. As its value amounted to only one hundred and twenty-eight dollars, it cannot be said that the house was very extravagantly furnished. It may be possible that a less number of beds would have accommodated the plaintiff and his wife and children, but it would be a very narrow construction of the statute to limit the exemption to the number required for immediate and constant use.

The absence of the plaintiff in San Francisco, when the sale took place, was a sufficient excuse for not claiming the exemption at the time. The absence was occasioned by sickness of members of his family, and the defendant was aware of the claim, as in consequence of its assertion the property had been previously released from seizure under an execution issued by himself, upon the same judgment.

The inquiry proposed as to the alleged agreement of the plaintiff to a sale by a third person, was properly excluded. If the plaintiff had agreed to place the property in the hands of a third person, to be sold for the benefit of his creditor, it does not follow that the exemption from forced sale was thereby waived.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

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

Related

In Re Lucas
62 B.R. 949 (S.D. California, 1986)
Independence Bank v. Heller
275 Cal. App. 2d 84 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Security Building & Loan Ass'n v. Ward
1935 OK 996 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Hocker v. Carroll
1912 OK 802 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Rugg v. Tolman
117 P. 54 (Utah Supreme Court, 1911)
Parketon v. PugsLey
121 S.W. 789 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Thompson v. Ogle
17 S.W. 593 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1891)
Kestler v. Kern
28 N.E. 726 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1891)
Harrington v. Smith
14 Colo. 376 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1890)
Conway v. Wilson
44 N.J. Eq. 457 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1888)
Stark v. Bare
39 Kan. 100 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1888)
Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Smersh
22 Neb. 751 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1888)
Albrecht v. Treitschke
17 Neb. 205 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1885)
Muir v. Howell
37 N.J. Eq. 39 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1883)
Hardin v. Wolf & Cerf
29 La. Ann. 333 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Cal. 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haswell-v-parsons-cal-1860.