TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott

The Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott.

Cleveland Arcade Co. v. Talcott, 154 N.E. 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 25, 1926
Docket
No. 7593
Judges
Sullivan, Vickery
Citations
154 N.E. 6222 Ohio App. 5165 Ohio Law. Abs. 2681926 Ohio App. LEXIS 380

Opinion of the Court — Sullivan

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.)

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 11929: 11960: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Opitz v. Brawley102 N.W.2d 117 (Wis. 1960)
  2. Gordon v. Brewer166 N.E. 915 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929)
  3. Janasik v. Thomas28 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 616 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga 1927)

Most recent

  1. Opitz v. Brawley102 N.W.2d 117 (Wis. 1960)
  2. Gordon v. Brewer166 N.E. 915 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929)
  3. Janasik v. Thomas28 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 616 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list