Caldwell v. Ryan
Supreme Court of Missouri
Transferred from Kansas City Court of Appeals. If appellant’s interpretation of the law he correct, the exemption statutes of this State are a delusion — an enactment without weight or substance.
Read the full summary
Transferred from Kansas City Court of Appeals. If appellant’s interpretation of the law he correct, the exemption statutes of this State are a delusion — an enactment without weight or substance. The law is well settled in this State that a debtor is entitled to three hundred dollars exempt to him as the head of a family, under section 3162, Revised Statutes 1899, in addition to his household goods and other property mentioned in section 3159’, Revised Statutes 1899. Bank v. Borgfeld, 93 Mo. App. 62. Caldwell in his replication specifically claimed his exemptions, and the court found that he…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
LAMM, J. —
I agree to the first paragraph of my Brother’s opinion and to so much of the second paragraph as holds that the two judgments Ryan- held against Caldwell could not be pleaded by answer as a set-off against Caldwell’s claim for unliquidated damages sounding in tort for the wrongful conversion of his two mules. If A sues B for damages for~assault and battery, B may not by answer set-off a promissory note or a judgment debt against A’s claim for the tort.
But in so far as the opinion in terms and by name overrules Wagner v. Furniture Co., 63 Mo. App. 206; *32Lewis v.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- H. F. & E. D. Craddock v. GoodwinTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Wait v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Curlee v. . ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- Millington v. LaurerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Reynolds v. HainesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1891
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.