168 P. 941 | Or. | 1917
delivered the opinion of the court.
The case involves a construction of Section 228, L. O. L., which, so far as material to this controversy, is as follows:
“The earnings of any debtor for personal services performed by such debtor at any time within thirty days next preceding service of an attachment, execution, garnishment, or other process amounting to the sum of $75, or less, shall be exempt from the effect of such process when it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court by the affidavit of such debtor, or otherwise, that such earnings are necessary for the use of the family supported wholly or partly by the labor of said debtor; except when the debt is incurred for family expenses fifty per centum of such earnings shall be subject to such attachment, execution, garnisliment, or other process.”
It is unquestioned that at the time of the garnishment there was due to plaintiff for his personal services during the thirty days mentioned in the statute the sum of $24.18, and no more; that the same was necessary for the use of the family supported by the labor of plaintiff; and that the debt for which the judgment was recovered was not incurred for family expenses.
“If the debtor’s property does not exceed in value the amount exempted, a selection is not required; for in such case the statute attaches the exemption as absolutely and unconditionally as if the particular property was specially designated and declared exempt.”
We are governed by the will of the legislature as expressed in the statute.
It follows that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the writ of review. It is so ordered.
Reversed and Remanded With Directions.