Richards v. Hubbard
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Replevin', for the plaintiff’s buggy wagon and harness, attached by the defendant, and claimed by the plaintiff, a physician, as “tools of his occupation” and exempt from attachment, the same being used by him in riding to visit his patients. These articles; with all the other tools of his occupation, were worth less than $100.
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
A buggy wagon and harness not being “tools” of a physician’s occupation, in the strictest sense of that term, the principal question in this case is, Were they reasonably necessary as tools for the plaintiff to use in prosecuting his business? Parshley v. Green, 58 N. H. 271; Somers v. Emerson, 58 N. H. 48; Gen. Laws, c. 224, s. 2.
The court cannot say, as a matter of law, that a wagon or a harness is a tool of a physician’s calling, and so exempt to all physicians; nor can thej^ say that it is not such a tool. The most that can be said, as a matter of law, is, that it may be a tool of his…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brown v. KendallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
- Patten v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
- Sallee v. WatersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Van Sickler v. JacobsNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Dains v. ProsserNew York Supreme Court · 1860
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hooper, Tr. in Bankruptcy v. KennedySupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
- Towne v. MarshallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1887