Hills

[1] This is a petition to revise an order of the District Court setting aside certain exempt property to a bankrupt. The question presented by the petition is one of law only, namely, the proper construction of- subdivision 4 of section 563, Rem. & Bal. Code of Washington, which exempts:

The particular question presented under this statute is: May a householder select merchandise from his stock in trade, not exceeding $250, coin, in value, where he does not possess , or does not desire to retain the animals there enumerated ? The following state and federal cases are cited in support of the claim that he may not: Carter v. Davis, 6 Wash. 327 , 33 Pac. 833 ; United States Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Hollenshead, 51 Wash. 326 , 98 Pac. 749 ; In re Gerber, 186 Fed. 693 , 108 C. C. A. 511 ; In re Scheier (D. C.) 188 Fed. 745 ; Creditors’ Collection Ass’n v. Bisbee, 80 Wash. 358 , 141 Pac. 886 .

There seems to have been some misapprehension in later cases in the state court, as well as in the federal courts, as to what was actually determined in the case of Carter v. Davis. The principal question there decided was that the property of a debtor who leaves the state with intent to defraud…

(dissenting). The petitioner relies upon Creditors’ Collection Ass’n v. Bisbee, 80 Wash. 358 , 141 Pac. 886 , In re Gerber, 186 Fed. 693 , 108 C. C. A. 511 , In re Scheier et al. (D. C.) 188 Fed. 745 , and Carter v. Davis, 6 Wash. 327 , 33 Pac. 833 . The majority of the court are of the opinion that the precise question here involved was not adjudged in any of those decisions; that the decision of the Supreme Court of the state in the Bisbee Case went no further than to hold that money could not be claimed exempt as “other property,” in lieu of the particular property named in subdivision 4; and that the language of that subdivision is plain and unambiguous, and affords no room for the application of the rule of ejusdem generis. It is true that in the Bisbee Case the ultimate question was whether money was included in the term “other property,” so that it might he selected in lieu thereof as exempt from execution. But the reasoning of the court was sufficiently inclusive to meet the question of the construction of the statute which is now before us. The court said:

And the court quoted from the decision in Ballard v. Waller the following:

*870 In the Gerber Case a bankrupt…