TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Horgan v. Amick

CATHERINE C. HORGAN v. WILLIAM AMICK

Horgan v. Amick, 62 Cal. 401 (1882)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1882
Docket
No. 8,570
Judges
McKiestby
Citations
62 Cal. 4011882 Cal. LEXIS 751
Cited by 6
Headnotes
Grain Harvested prom: Homestead not Exempt prom Execution. Homestead—Crop—Execution—Exemption—Trover.—Grain which wag harvested from lands constituting a homestead (lands which before the declaration of homestead were community property) is not, as such, exempt from execution.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from the judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yolo. Bush, J. Action to recover a lot of wheat, or the value thereof. The plaintiff was a married woman, the wife of Cornelius Horgan. The defendant, a constable, justified under writs of attachment against the husband of plaintiff. A bill of exceptions shows that the action was determined in the Court below on the following agreed statements of facts: 1. That the wheat described in the complaint was raised by the husband of plaintiff, upon the premises in said complaint described; plaintiff at that time residing with her husband and doing the household work. 2. That the seed from which said wheat was raised was sowed partly in the month of September, 1880, and partly in the month of January, 1881. 3. That at the time of the filing of the declaration of homestead in said complaint mentioned, all of said grain was growing and above the ground, but the same was not cut until more than one month after the filing of said declaration. 4. That said wheat was taken by defendant on the said premises, on the same day that the same was threshed. 5. That the value of said wheat was and is the sum of five hundred and fifty-one dollars and sixty-six cents. 6. That the allegations in the answer concerning the issuance and levy of the writs of attachment therein mentioned, and concerning the actions in which said writs were issued, are true. After the decision in department, a petition for hearing in bank was presented and denied.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McKiestby

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McKiestby, J.:

Is grain which was harvested from lands constituting a - homestead (lands which before the declaration of homestead were community property) exempt from execution for debts of the husband ?

All the products of the homestead are not in terms made to constitute a portion of the homestead. It is urged that homestead laws are framed upon considerations of public policy, *406 beneficial in their nature, and ought to be liberally expounded. We agree that such laws should be construed in such manner as shall further the object intended to be attained, and as will include within the exemption all things coming within the spirit of the law, except where such .construction is contrary to the evident meaning of the statute, or (where the statute is silent) of other statutes bearing upon the subject. But reading our homestead law in connection with Section 690 of the . Code of Civil Procedure, it seems clear that the Legislature intended that the whole crop of grain raised upon a homestead farm, without reference to its quantity, should not be exempt from execution. The third subdivision of the section of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to reads: “ The farniing utensils or implements of husbandry of the judgment debtor; also, two oxen, or two horses, or two mules, and their harness; one cart or wagon, and food for such oxen, horses, or mules for one month; also, all seed, grain, or vegetables actually provided, reserved, or on hand for the purpose of planting or sowing at any time within the ensuing six months, not exceeding in value the sum of two hundred dollars, and seventy-five bee-hives, and one horse and vehicle belonging to any person who is maimed or crippled, and the same is necessary in his business.”

It would be giving a strained interpretation of the language of the foregoing to say it was intended, .in addition to all the crop grown upon the homestead, that the debtor should be secured seed-grain to the value of two hundred dollars. It is obvious it is meant that only grain to that amount shall be exempt. It does not appear that the statutes of Georgia, under which Marshall v. Cook, 46 Ga. 302 , was decided, were like ours.

Judgment reversed.

Boss and McKee, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11893: 11899: 11906: 11911: 11924: 118882026peak 1888 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coates v. Caldwell8 S.W. 922 (Tex. 1888)
  2. Morgan v. Rountree55 N.W. 65 (Iowa 1893)
  3. In re Sullivan148 F. 815 (8th Cir. 1906)
  4. Jones v. First Nat. Bank of Oktaha1924 OK 673, 228 P. 992
  5. In re Hoag97 F. 543 (W.D. Wis. 1899)
  6. Neblett v. Shackleton69 S.E. 946 (Va. 1911)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. First Nat. Bank of Oktaha1924 OK 673, 228 P. 992
  2. Neblett v. Shackleton69 S.E. 946 (Va. 1911)
  3. In re Sullivan148 F. 815 (8th Cir. 1906)
  4. In re Hoag97 F. 543 (W.D. Wis. 1899)
  5. Morgan v. Rountree55 N.W. 65 (Iowa 1893)
  6. Coates v. Caldwell8 S.W. 922 (Tex. 1888)

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