This сause arose in a Justice court. Appellant sued respondent and others and judgment by default was rendered against them on June 10, 1912. On April 29, 1914, execution on said judgment was issued by the Justice, and on May 5, 1914, William H. Launder was summoned as garnishee. Thereаfter the garnishee filed his answer stating that he owed dedendants nothing. A denial of the facts stated in said answer was filed by plаintiff and upon a trial, a judgment was rendered by the Justice in favor of the plaintiff and against the garnishee in the sum of two hundred, еighty and 8/100 ($280.08) dollars. The garnishee appealed from this judgment to the circuit court where the judgment against the garnishee was affirmed because of the latter’s failure to give notice of his appeal, as required by law.
Execution on said judgment was issued directed against the garnishee, and as a result thereof said Launder, garnishee, on May 25, 1915, paid to the sheriff of Jackson County the sum of three hundred, twelve and 73/100 ($312.73) dollars, and on June 8, 1915, the sheriff, after deducting his costs, turned over to the сlerk of the circuit court the sum of two hundred, ninety-six and 88/1.00 ($296.88) dollars. Thereupon, on June 8, 1915, the date on which said money was pаid to the clerk of the circuit court, respondent, T. L. Rowland, one of the defendants in the original cause in which said Launder was summoned as garnishee, filed
The court below, after a trial upon said interplea, found that Rowland was entitled to his exemptions as prayed, and allowed the same as of the time he filed his interplea, and not as of the time of the levy of the execution.
Appellant claims that the court erred in its action and gives two reasons thеrefor. First, that respondent waived his right to claim his exemptions by failing to make such claim at the time of the levy by the constable, or within a reasonable time thereafter; Second, that the respondent’s right to claim the fund in question as exempt from execution must be determined according to his exemption status at the time of the levy of the execution, and not at the time of the filing of his interplea.
Section 2184, Revised Statutes 1909, requires the officer in whose hands any exeсution may come to apprise the defendant of his exemption rights. It is mandatory on the officer to give this noticе. [State v. Romer,
The Statute allowing exеmptions was passed to relieve poor debtors, and being benevolent in its nature,
After having permitted said defendant to interplea, was the court right in holding that his status with reference to his exemptions was to be fixed at the time of the filing of such interplea instead of at the time of levying of execution?
Section 2180, Rеvised Statutes 1909, provides that “the following property when owned by the head of a family shall be exempt from attaсhment and execution,” and section 2183 provides that “each head of a family at his election, in lieu of ... , may select and hold exempt from execution . . . .” Section 2184 provides that, “It shall be the duty of the officer in whose hands any exеcution may come, before he shall levy the same, to apprise the person against whom such executiоn has issued of the property exempt under sections 2179, 2180 and 2183, and his right to hold the same as exempt from attachment аnd execution.”
From a reading of the foregoing sections of the statutes it is apparent that the language “ exempt from execution” and “hold exempt from execution” and “property exempt” from execution fixes the dеbtor’s rights as of the time of the levy. [Martin v. Barnett, 158 Mo. App. l. c. 393; Caldwell v. Renfro, 99 Mo. App. l. c. 380.] Giving that beneficent interpretation to the
As the Justice found that the money garnished was that of defendant, Rowland, and the judgment of the Justice having been affirmed by the circuit court, the latter, on trial anew, should so regard the fund in its custody.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.