Harris v. Haynes

Haynes, as sheriff of Kent county, levied on certain tinner’s tools and machines belonging to Harris, which Harris replevied as exempt.

The facts are found specially. It appears that in January, 1873, Harris, who had been engaged in the hardware and tinning business, failed, and made a general assignment, reserving therefrom this property as exempt. The levy of execution was made in the early part of May. The tools had remained in the old shop, which was separated from the hardware store by a partition; and after the assignment, Harris had access to the shop, and not to the store.

During the…