Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/222

 Messrs. B. F. Spaulding and A. C. Davis for respondent: The exemption laws should be liberally construed, and the assignment law failing to make provision for selection of exemptions the court will devisea mode. The assignment was valid: Cribben v. Ellis, 34 N. W. 154; Perry v. Vezina, 18 id. 657; Hildebrand v. Bowman, 100 Pa. St. 580; Richardson v. Marquese, 42 Am. Rep. 353; Derby v. Weyrick, 30 id. 827; Bank v. Peterson, 35 N. W. 47; Muhr v. Pinover, 10 Atl. Rep. 289; Severson v. Porter, 40 N, W. 577; Burrill on Assignments, (4th Ed.) 137-40.

, J. On the 11th day of March, 1890, defendant, under the statute regulating assignments, made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and made, executed, and delivered to one Edward R. Sherburne, as his assignee, a written instrument of assignment in due form, in which instrument said Sherburne joined. On the same day the said instrument was duly filed and recorded. The writing purported to convey, and did convey, to the assignee all of the assignor’s property, real and personal, in trust for his creditors, without any preference or reservation whatever, “except such property only as is exempt by law from attachment and execution, as provided by sections 323, 324, and 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” Within the time limited by statute, the defendant duly filed an inventory of his property, embracing a schedule of the property which was conveyed in trust to the assignee; also a schedule of certain property claimed and conceded to be absolutely exempt by statute from seizure and sale on legal process; and a final schedule of other personal property of the defendant, which was itemized and valued by him at the sum of $1,499.77, which last-mentioned property was not assigned, but was reserved and claimed by defendant as exempt property, under the statute exempting additional personal property to an amount not exceeding $1,500 in value. To the inventory was added an affidavit made by the defendant, stating “that said inventory and schedules are in all respects just and true, according to the best of his knowledge and belief.” The assignee qualified in due time and took possession of the property conveyed to him in trust. On March 29, 18990, all the property in question, except