This is not a case calling for the application of the rules that obtain in cases of fraudulent admixture of goods. If appellant’s position be correct, then a merchant would be entitled to no exemptions whatever as against the claims of parties from whom he purchased goods unless he kept his stock so arranged and classified that he could tell at any moment from exactly what source he received every article in his stock.
Lastly, the old common law rule is invoked that, the goods being in custodia legis, replevin would not lie. The rule is not of universal application in this state. Section 4973, Comp. Laws, prescribes what the affidavit in claim and delivery of personal property shall state, and, among other things, it must state that the property was not “seized under an execution or attachment against the property of the plaintiff, or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure.” Clearly this statute authorizes the action where the property is claimed as exempt, as in this case. Cooley v. Davis, 34 Ia. 128; Whitney v. Swensen, (Minn.) 45 N. W. Rep. 609.
Judgment affirmed.
Wallin, J., concurs.
Corliss, C. J., having been of counsel, took no part in the above decision.
(54 N. W. Rep. 286.)
