54 Wis. 583 | Wis. | 1882
Lead Opinion
The statute provides that the exemption of a homestead shall not be impaired by a sale thereof, but such exemption “shall extend to the proceeds derived from such sale, while held with the intention to procure another homestead therewith, for a period not exceeding two years.” K. S. pj 783, sec. 2983.
The note being proceeds derived from the sale of the judgment debtor’s homestead less than two years before the garnishee action was brought, and the same being held by him with the intention to procure another homestead therewith, the only question in the case is, Was his right to hold the same exempt from seizure defeated by the removal of the judgment debtor from the sta£e? We think this question must be answered in the negative. The statute contains no such restriction. It exempts the proceeds of the sale of a homestead for two years, with the single condition that the same be held with the intention to procure another homestead therewith. This condition is complied with in the present case. It does not impose as a condition of the exemption that the grantor of the homestead shall continue to reside in this state, or that his intention must be to procure another homestead in this state. To hold that either of those conditions is implied in the statute would not only violate the liberal rule of construction of exemption laws in favor of the debtor which has always obtained in this state, but would be an interpolation of conditions and restrictions in the statute, which the legislature has not expressed, and, as we think, did not intend.
An argument against the view we have taken of the statute was presented by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, based upon the language of the same section (2983) which exempts a homestead “ owned and occupied by any resident of this state.” But we regard this provision merely as a restriction
The rule of construction here adopted was sanctioned and applied by this court in Lowe v. Stringham, 14 Wis., 222.
, The judgment must be affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
I cheerfully concur in the liberal rule of construction so often given by this court to the laws of this state exempting property of those within its jurisdiction; but it does not follow that the same liberality should extend those laws so as to exempt the property of persons who are not in this state, but are citizens and residents of other states. It would seem that exemption laws, as well as all other laws of a state granting special benefits, are presumptively for those within the state, and not those who are citizens and permanent residents of other states.
In Cope v. Doherty, 4 Kay & Johns., 367, it was held that “ prima facie, and unless the contrary be expressed, or be implied from the absolute necessity of the case, every legislature must be presumed to have intended by its enactments to regulate the rights which should subsist between its own subjects and not to affect the rights of foreigners, whether by way of restricting or augmenting their natural rights.” 1 To the same effect is The Zollverein, 1 Swab. Adm., 96; Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. Cas., 815. “It is conceded,” said Maesi-iall, C. J., “ that the legislation of every country is territorial; that beyond its own territory it can only affect its own subjects as citizens.” Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 279. Mr. Story states the same rule thus: “ It is plain that the laws of one country can have no intrinsic force, pjroprio vigore, except within the territorial limits and jurisdiction of that country. They can
In Finley v. Sly, 44 Ind., 267, it was held that, “ when an execution defendant ceases to be a resident householder of this state, his right to exempt any of his property from execution ceases, and property that may have been set off to him as exempt while such resident householder, may be seized and sold on execution.” See Norton v. Lum, 18 La. Ann., 39; Trawick v. Harris, 8 Tex., 317.
Assuming that our exemption laws were enacted with reference to our own citizens and those within our own jurisdiction, and not those who are citizens and residents of other states, it would seem that the defendant Allen, being a resident and citizen of Minnesota, is not entitled to the note in question as exempt under our statute, unless the legislature have expressly or by necessary implication manifested, an intent to exempt such property to citizens and residents of other states. Under our statute, a “homestead” is exempt by reason of its being “ owned and occupied by ” one who is a “ resident of this state.” Section 2983, R. S. True, the same section interposes an exception to the extent that “ such exemption shall not be impaired bj temporary removal with the’ intention to reoccupy the same as a homestead, nor by a sale thereof, but shall extend- to the proceeds derived from such sale, while held with the intention to procure another homestead therewith, for a period not exceeding two years.” Certainly a removal from the state, not only with the intention of becoming a resident and citizen of another state, but actually becoming such resident and citizen, is entirely inconsistent with “ temporary removal with the intention to reoccupy the same as a homestead.” Besides, the express language of the statue is, “ such exemption shall not be impaired,” “ but shall extend to the proceeds,” etc. But' “ such exemption,”
In Yelverton v. Burton, 26 Pa. St., 354, Woodward, J., giving the opinion of the court, said: “ But debtors subject to foreign attachment are no more within the spirit of the exemption law . . . than they are within its letter. We do not legislate for men 'beyond our jurisdiction, and certainly not for absconding debtors; but the act . . . was designed for our own citizens — for the families of the poor who are with us,— that the rapacity of creditors might not strip them of every comfort and convenience. The primary object of the process of foreign attachment is to compel the appearance of j;lie debtor; and if it fail of this purpose — if he will not come within our
I am not aware of any case where this court has heretofore held that a resident and citizen of another state is entitled to the benefit of the exemption laws of this state.
In Lowe v. Stringham, 14 "Wis., 222, the claimant of the wheat was a “ temporary resident,” and it was held that the statute makes no discrimination “between temporary and permanent residents.” What was said in that case by Mr. Justice Paine about “the temporary sojourner, or even the stranger within our gates,” was clearly obiter; but even that, as I think, does not authorize the inference of a willingness on his part to give residents and citizens of other states the benefit of the exemption laws of this state. But, however that may be, one of the first acts passed at the next session of the legislature after that decision, was chapter 11, Laws of 1862, limiting the exemption of the class of personal property referred to in Lowe v. Stringham, and all other personal property (except such as pertained to the household, wearing apparel, a place of worship, and burial of the dead), “ to debtors having an actual residence in this state.” That limitation has not only been preserved, but extended from four subdivisions of the section to ten subdivisions. See last part of section 2982, R. S., p. 783. Prior tq. the act of 1862, as intimated by Mr. Justice Paine, the statute exempting personal property was silent as to residence, but the implication arising from the rules of construction indicated by the above authorities made it applicable only to those who were within the jurisdiction of the state. Of course, when the legislature expressly limited cer
For the reasons given, I prefer to have my associates take the responsibility of the decision of the court in this case.
By the Gourt.— Judgment affirmed.