TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Prather v. Bobo

William Prather v. A. J. Bobo, Sheriff

Prather v. Bobo, 15 La. Ann. 524 (1860)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1860
Judges
Voorhies
Citations
15 La. Ann. 524
Headnotes
Where it is sliown that a party depends entirely upon his trade as a printer and editor for means of support, his printing press and materials necessary for the exorcise of his trade are exempt from seizure under Art. 644 C. P. Tho tools and instruments, exempted from seizure by law, must be necessary and not merely convenient for tho exercise of the trade by which tho debtor gains a living.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Parish of Morehouse, Richardson, J.

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

Opinion of the Court — Voorhies

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

Voorhies, J.

The plaintiff has enjoined the execution of a judgment rendered against him in favor of the appellees, Byrne, Vance & Co. He contends that, under Art. 644 of the Code of Practice, the Sheriff proceeded illegally to seize his printing press and materials.

The evidence shows that Prather is a printer by trade; that he is the owner and editor of a paper called the Morehouse Advocate; that he himself, with- the assistance of two workmen, does the printing in the establishment; and that his circumstances are such, that it is with the means derived from this source that he gains a living. The press and materials are stated to be worth about the sum of eight, hundred dollars.

Tho law exempts from seizure “ the tools and instruments necessary for the exercise of the trade by which he (the debtor) gains a living.” C. P. 644. In construing this text, the courts have held that the books of professional men were exempt from seizure; and so, of the commercial books and counting-house furniture of a merchant, and of iron chests found in the counting-house, in which are kept the books and papers. Lambeth v. Milton, 2 R. 81 ; Farmer’s Bank v. Franklin, 1 An. 393 ; Harrison & Co. v. W. W. Mitchell et als., 13 An. 260.

In the case of Hanna v. Bry, it was held that a doctor’s horse could not be fairly comprehended under the denomination of tools and instruments necessary for the exercise of his profession. “ His surgical instruments, said the court, those for the preparation of medicines usually employed by country practitioners, and possibly, under the dictum in Milton’s case, 2 R. 81 , his medical library, are protected by the Code. But we cannot go further, and treat as tools and instruments of his profession all other things that contribute to its convenient exercise.” 5 An. 655.

In the case at bar, the exemption from seizure finds its application; for the materials levied upon are, not merely convenient, but necessary to carry on tho debtor’s trade,- — -they are his indispensable tools and instruments. And as this is the only means by which he gains a living, and is enabled to sustain himself and family, and as these materials are'the implements of the trade, which he carries on with his manual labor, they become, under the Article of the Code, exempt from seizure.

It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be avoided and reversed ; and that there be judgment in favor of tho plaintiff and appellant, perpetuating tho injunction sued out in this case, the defendants and appellees paying the costs of both courts.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1882–1883: 11916–1917: 11924–1925: 11928–1929: 11930–1931: 11932–1933: 21938–1939: 11944–1945: 11998–1999: 118822026peak 1932 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schwartz v. Dennis70 So. 857 (La. 1916)
  2. People v. Shakun167 N.E. 187 (N.Y. 1929)
  3. Green v. Raymond58 Tex. 80 (1882)
  4. Holt v. Flournoy24 So. 2d 171 (La. Ct. App. 1945)
  5. Sliman v. Fish147 So. 493 (La. 1933)
  6. In re Black225 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1998)

Most recent

  1. In re Black225 B.R. 610 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1998)
  2. Holt v. Flournoy24 So. 2d 171 (La. Ct. App. 1945)
  3. Lafourche Ice & Shrimp Co. v. Gilbeau185 So. 310 (La. Ct. App. 1938)
  4. Talbot v. Scogin147 So. 722 (La. Ct. App. 1933)
  5. Sliman v. Fish147 So. 493 (La. 1933)
  6. Webb v. Larcade134 So. 292 (La. Ct. App. 1931)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Barnhart v. Painter, 2 Rawle 78 (1829) 14

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