State v. Lacy

Hamilton Circuit Court

State v. Lacy

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 111

DecidedJanuary 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 111 (State v. Lacy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lacy, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 111 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

We are of the opinion that the relator is entitled to a writ as praye'd for, requiring Lacy, as constable, to proceed uuder the statute to set off to her the exemptions to which she is by law entitled. He has in his possession, actual or constructive, and under his control as such constable, property levied on by him by virtue -of an execution issued on a judgment recovered by A. J. Conroy & Co. against the relator, such levy having been made,on such goods at the direction of said plaintiff in said judgment. This, we think, was a waiver of any claim by said Conroy & Co. to the ownership of said property by virtue of a chattel mortgage from Mrs. Armstrong, the relator, even if such claim were asserted in this action, as we understand it is not.

We find from the evidence in this case that Mrs. Armstrong is a resident of this state and city, and was so at the time of the levy of this execution, and ever since has been; that she is not the owner of a homestead, or of any real estate,- and that she is a widow and the head of a family, and, therefore, under the statute that in lieu of a homestead she is entitled to hold exempt from execution on this judgment personal property to be selected by her, not exceeding $500 in value, in addition to the amount of other chattel property she may have which the law exempts. That this was the case when the execution was levied and the demand made upon the officer to set off to her her property as exempt, and that she had not, when said levy and demand were made, personal property of the value of $500. That said relator did make a legal and proper demand for such exemption, asking that the whole of said property be set off to her on the ground that the value of it and of all of her property was less than $500, which demand was refused.

The defendant will be required, therefore, to proceed according to law to ascertain the value of relator’s said property, and set off to her so much thereof as is exempt from execution as is selected by her.

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

Smith, J.

We are of the opinion that the relator is entitled to a writ as praye'd for, requiring Lacy, as constable, to proceed uuder the statute to set off to her the exemptions to which she is by law entitled. He has in his possession, actual or constructive, and under his control as such constable, property levied on by him by virtue -of an execution issued on a judgment recovered by A. J. Conroy & Co. against the relator, such levy having been made,on such goods at the direction of said plaintiff in said judgment. This, we think, was a waiver of any claim by said Conroy & Co. to the ownership of said property by virtue of a chattel mortgage from Mrs. Armstrong, the relator, even if such claim were asserted in this action, as we understand it is not.

We find from the evidence in this case that Mrs. Armstrong is a resident of this state and city, and was so at the time of the levy of this execution, and ever since has been; that she is not the owner of a homestead, or of any real estate,- and that she is a widow and the head of a family, and, therefore, under the statute that in lieu of a homestead she is entitled to hold exempt from execution on this judgment personal property to be selected by her, not exceeding $500 in value, in addition to the amount of other chattel property she may have which the law exempts. That this was the case when the execution was levied and the demand made upon the officer to set off to her her property as exempt, and that she had not, when said levy and demand were made, personal property of the value of $500. That said relator did make a legal and proper demand for such exemption, asking that the whole of said property be set off to her on the ground that the value of it and of all of her property was less than $500, which demand was refused.

The defendant will be required, therefore, to proceed according to law to ascertain the value of relator’s said property, and set off to her so much thereof as is exempt from execution as is selected by her.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lacy-ohcircthamilton-1899.