Willson v. Ellis

1 Denio 462
CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
DecidedJuly 15, 1845
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1 Denio 462 (Willson v. Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Willson v. Ellis, 1 Denio 462 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Opinion

By the Court, Beardsley, J.

By the act of 1842, (Laws 1842, p. 193, § 1,) “ necessary household furniture and working tools and team owned by any person being a householder, or having a family for which he provides, to the value of not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars,” are exempt from levy [463]*463and sale under execution. The plaintiff was a householder, and his property in value was far short of the amount to which the exemption extends. The only question is whether a clock was “ necessary household furniture.”

A clock may fall within the description of “ household furniture,” but whether “ necessary” for a householder or one who provides for a family, is a question of fact and not of Jaw. The jury found that it was not necessary for the plaintiff, as he was situated; and that finding must be regarded as decisive of that question.

By the former statute, necessary food for a cow and two swine; necessary pork, beef, &c. provided for family use; necessary fuel for the use of the family for sixty days; necessary apparel, beds, bedsteads and bedding, and the tools and implements of a mechanic, necessary to the carrying on of his trade, were exempt from execution. (2 R. S. 254, § 169.) In all these instances the question of necessity is one of fact, and can in no case be reviewed as a mere legal proposition. The party who claims the exemption must show that the article was necessary, and not merely that it was convenient. (14 John. 434; Cowen’s Tr. 1052.)

In this case the common pleas erred. The jury found that the clock was not necessary, and that point is at an end. The judgment of the common pleas • must be reversed, and that of the justice affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Knapp v. O'Neill
53 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 317 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
Richards v. Hubbard
59 N.H. 158 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1879)
In re Steele
22 F. Cas. 1202 (W.D. Tennessee, 1879)
Smith v. Slade
57 Barb. 637 (New York Supreme Court, 1870)
Van Schaick v. . Third Avenue R.R. Co.
38 N.Y. 346 (New York Court of Appeals, 1868)
Seaman v. Luce
23 Barb. 240 (New York Supreme Court, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Denio 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willson-v-ellis-nycterr-1845.