Summary

Ward Hunt Edwards v. Kearzey — Concurrence

A State 'may, if it thinks proper, direct that the necessary implements of agriculture, or the tools of a mechanic, or articles of necessity in household furniture, shall, like wearing-apparel, be not liable to execution on judgments.'
The principle was laid down with the like accuracy by Judge Denio, in Morse v. Goold (11 N. Y. 281) , where he says: 'There is no universal principle of law that every part of the property of a debtor is liable to be seized for the payment of a judgment against him.
Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt Edwards v. Kearzey — Concurrence

The question is, whether the law which prevailed when the contract was made has been so far changed that there does not remain a substantial and reasonable mode of enforcing it in the ordinary and regular course of justice. Taking the mass of contracts and the situation and circumstances of debtors as they are ordinarily found to exist, no one could probably say that exempting the team and household furniture of a householder to the amount of $150 from levy or execution would directly affect the efficiency of remedies for the collection of debts.' Mr.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature