26 F.2d 460 | 9th Cir. | 1928
This 'case comes to us on appeal from the order of the court below sustaining the appellee’s claim of exemption of the tools and implements described in the above statement of facts. The statute of California (subdivision 4, § 690, C. C. P.) exempts “the tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan, necessary to carry on his trade.” Here the claim of exemption included one two horse power aiyl one five horse power electric motor, connected respectively with a joiner and a band saw and certain transmission equipment. The contention of the appellant is that power machinery is not included within the term “tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan.” It is true that there are decisions holding that, in order to be exempt, a “tool” or machine must be operated by hand and not by steam or water power, but, on the other hand, it has been, held that exemption as a tool or implement may extend to an electric motor and to a lathe, and even to portable steam engines and machinery for sawing logs and making lumber. Eckman v. Poor, 38 Colo. 200, 87 P. 1088; In re Robinson (D. C.) 206 F. 176; Baker v. Maxwell, 183 Iowa, 1192, 168 N. W. 160, 2 A. L. R. 814; Wood v. Bresnahan, 63 Mich. 614, 30 N. W. 206; Reeves v. Bascue, 76 Kan. 333, 91 P. 77, 123 Am. St. Rep. 137; In re Robb, 99 Cal. 202, 33 P. 890, 37 Am. St. Rep. 48; In re Petersen (D. C.) 95 F. 417.
The tools which the appellee claimed as exempt are, we think, those which are necessary in his trade or occupation. In Hills v. Joseph, 229 P. 865, this court held that statutes creating the right of exemption are subject to the rule of liberal construction, and are generally subject to the most liberal con
