40 Iowa 457 | Iowa | 1875
This cause was tried by the court below, without a jury, and submitted on the following “ agreed state-, ment of facts:”
“ 1. That at the February term, 1873, of the District Court of Kossuth county, Iowa, the defendants obtained a judgment against H. 0. McCoy et al., for $334, and' costs; that on the lltli day of March, 1874, there being then due on said judgment, the sum of $259, and interest, execution issued from the office of the clerk of said court therefor, and the same being placed in the hands of J. Mi Pinkerton, sheriff of Kossuth county,-Iowa, he, by direction of Cornell, "Ward & Com
2. That the defendants have duly credited the plaintiff with the amount of said warrant on said judgment.
8. That no written notice was ever served on the sheriff or defendants of plaintiff’s claimed exemption of said warrant from execution.
4. That said II. C. McCoy is a practicing physician, and said warrant was granted him in payment of professional services as a physician, said services being by him personally performed. .
5. That the warrant levied on was drawn by the county auditor without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff', and was for his earnings, for his personal services within ninety days next preceding the levy.”
I. The question here presented is whether the earnings of the plaintiff as a physician, for his personal services within ninety days next preceding the levy of the execution, were exempt therefrom.
The Code, section 3074, and the Eevision, section 3307, provide that the “earnings of such debtor for his personal
It is admitted that the money in controversy is part of the “ earnings of the debtor for his personal services,” rendered or accrued within ninety days next preceding the levy. The admitted facts bring the case clearly within the language of the statute.
But it is claimed that the statute does not include physicians or other professional men. There is no foundation for this view-. The statute makes no destination between professional men, mechanics or common laborers. It extends the exemption to the earnings of the debtor for his personal services, or those of his family accrued within ninety days prior to the
II. It is further urged, however, that under section 3055 of-the Code, it was necessary for the plaintiff, to give notice to
III. It is again urged that as the petition does not allege nor the proof show the plaintiff to be a married man or the
The warrant claimed by plaintiff is alleged by him to have been for the sum of fifty dollars, the amount of his claim
Aebtemkd.