Blount v. Medbery

Citations

• 16 S.D. 562
• 94 N.W. 428
• 1903 S.D. LEXIS 123

Syllabus

<p>1. Laws 1890, c. 86, § 2, declares that, in addition to the property mentioned in the preceeding section as exempt to the debtor who is the head of a family, such debtor may select from other personal property, not absolutely exempt, money or property not exceeding in value $750, and if he is a single person, not the head of a family, of the value of $300. Held, that a married woman could not recover in an action against a sheriff for levying on property alleged to be exempt to her under section 2, in the absence of an affirmative finding- that she was the head of the family.</p> <p>2. Evidence of plaintiff on an issue as to the truth of representations made to induce the sale of goods to her, though not uncontradioted, is not conclusive, but may be disregarded, as not entitled to credit.</p> <p>3. Plaintiff’s husband, who was transacting plaintiff’s business as her agent with her knowledge, made representations in June, 1900 to induce the sale of goods to her, that she possessed property, exclusive of all her liabilities, of the value of $7,000, and that the cash value of her merchandise was $3,700. In December of the same year, plaintiff made affidavit that the value of her property, exclusive of her homestead; was less than $750, including her stock of merchandise; but no explanation was given by plaintiff or her husband as to the cause of the depreciation, though plaintiff stated that, at the time the statement by her husband was made, it was true. Held, that such facts justified a finding that the sale of the goods to plaintiff was induced by fraud, precluding plaintiff from claiming exemptions.</p>