Hills

Kennedy v. Hills

Good Law
147 C.C.A. 474·233 F. 666·1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2507
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 3, 1916No. 2762California385 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

The bankrupts were loggers engaged in the business of logging, and had families Jiving with and dependent upon them. By petition for revision they present the question whether, under paragraph 13, section 563, Remington & Ballinger’s. Annotated Codes and Statutes of Washington, they were entitled to certain horses as exempt.

The state statute referred to exempts from execution and attachment, except as specially provided, certain property, for instance: “To a farmer, one span of horses or mules, with harness, or two yoke of oxen,” and certain other things; to a mechanic, “the tools and instruments used to carry on his trade for the support of himself and family” ; to a physician, “his library,' * * * one horse, with harness *667 and buggy”; to a teamster or drayman, engaged in that business'for the support of himself or his family, “his team, consisting of one span of horses, or mules, or two yoke of oxen, or a horse and mule”; and—

Petitioners ask us to include within the meaning of “work cattle,” used in paragraph 13 just quoted, the horses claimed herein. Their argument is that, when the statute was passed more than 50 years ago, both oxen and horses were used in logging, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.