2. Same; Same; Debtor Entitled to "Additional Exemptions."
Held, further, that a debtor making such assignment, who claims additional exemption of personal property to an amount not exceeding $1,500 in value, is entitled to such exemptions; and, when the debtor’s duly-verified inventory embraces a schedule of such additional exemptions, that such inventory and schedule, in the absence of fraud, is sufficient, prima facie, as a claim by the debtor of such additional exemptions.
3. Same; Duty of Assignee.
Held, further, that, under the statute regulating such assignments all property not exempt from execution passes to the assignee, and that it becomes his duty, as assignee, to follow and take into his possession all of the debtor's non-exempt property, not voluntarily turned over to him by the assignor. Such voluntary assignment creates a trust, and district courts, sitting as courts of equity, have, under the statute, and by virtue of their inherent powers, jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the trust; and such courts will, on proper application, put forth their equity powers to aid the administration of the trust.
4. Same; Reservation of Exemptions not Ground for Attachment.
Held, further, that, in the absence of actual fraud, attachment will not lie against an assignor, for the sole reason that in making an assignment for the benefit of creditors he reserves all his property “exempt from execution.”
5. Appealable Order.
An order vacating an attachment is an appealable order.
(Opinion Filed June 3, 1890.)
APPEAL from district court, Cass county; Hon. William B. McConnell, Judge.
Appeal from an order vacating an attachment.
Messrs. Francis & Southard and Stone, Newman & Resser, for the appellant: The property excepted and reserved from assignment was not exempt and rendered the assignment void: Comp Laws, §§ 4663, 4667, Art. 2, Chap. 13. The statutes allowing exemptions do not apply to cases of voluntary assignment. The assignment being void and fraudulent in law, furnishes ground for attachments: Noble v. Holmes, 5 Hill, 194; Van Etten v. Hurst, 6 id. 311; Thurber v. Blank, 50 N. Y. 80; Richardson v. Rogers, 45 Mich. 591; Comp. Laws, § 4995.
