Legal Opinion

Hoyer v. McBride

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 18, 1927PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMorliNg, J.

The record shows that four razors, two or three pair of scissors, combs, strops, and a mug were released as exempt. We do not understand plaintiff to resist the defendant’s right to the exemption of his proper tools as a mechanic, under Section 11760, Code of 1924, and we think that such resistance could not be successfully made. Baker v. Maxwell, 183 Iowa 1192; Fore v. Cooper (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 341; Terry v. McDaniel, 103 Tenn. 415 (53 S. W. 732); 25 Corpus Juris 51. As we understand plaintiff’s claim, it is that the defendant must point out the particular tools used solely by him,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Smith v. McBrydeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
  2. Bliss v. VedderSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
  3. Terry v. McDanielTennessee Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Baker v. MaxwellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
  5. Holden v. StranahanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re IndvikUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · 1990
  2. First Nat. Bank Mason City v. LarsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
  3. Matter of MyersUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Iowa · 1985
  4. In Re Estate of CarpenterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
  5. In re EbyDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API