
    Hinds et al. v. Sells.
    
      Amount involved not more than three hundred dollars — Court’s jurisdiction confined to constitutionality of statute involved, when — Section 7014, Revised Statutes — Constitutional.
    1. Where the amount involved is not more than three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and this court acquired jurisdiction by reason only of the constitutionality of a statute being involved, its jurisdiction of the cause is confined to the question as to the constitutionality of such statute, and other questions will not be considered or decided.
    2. Section 7014, Revised Statutes, giving a right of action against one who sends a claim out of this state to be collected by attachment, and thereby to defeat the exemption laws of Ohio, is not in conflict with any provision of the constitution of this state, and is a valid enactment.
    (Decided November 13, 1900.)
    Error to the circuit court of Tuscarawas county.
    The defendant in error brought his action against John Hinds and William Hinds in the court of common pleas for the recovery of one hundred and sixty-five dollars, and by proper averments in his petition showed that he was a resident of Ohio and entitled to the benefits of the homestead and exemption "laws,, that he was and had been an employe of the Pitts-burg, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, having money due and owing to him from that company for his services; that said plaintiffs, in error, being also residents of Ohio and having a valid claim against him which they could not collect in this state by reason of the exemption laws, made an assignment thereof to one Nicholas Shultz, residing at Wheeling, West Virginia, for the purpose, and with the intent to deprive defendant in error of his. right to have his personal earnings exempt from application to the payment of said claim, and to defeat the exemption laws of this state. He also averred that the said assignment was a mere sham and that the plaintiffs in error were at all times the real owners, of said claim, and that said Shultz, by proceedings in attachment and garnishee process at Wheeling, collected said claim from the railroad company out of money due him for personal earnings in Ohio, which were so exempt from application to the payment of the said claim in this state.
    The defendants below answered and, among other things, the constitutionality of section 7014, Revised Statutes of Ohio, was drawn in question. There was, a verdict and judgment in favor of Mr. Sells, the plaintiff below for the full amount claimed by him. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the circuit court affirmed the judgment, and now plaintiffs in error come here seeking relief.
    
      E. E. Lindsay; A. W. Elson and Healea & Greene. for plaintiffs in error.
    A careful examination of Section 7014 discloses-that its purpose is not solely to protect citizens and residents of Ohio in their exemption rights under the-laws of the state.
    
      By its terms it imposes a penalty and creates a cause of action in a civil suit, and prescribes a rule of evidence for the commission of several separate and distinct acts which may properly be classified as follows :
    First. “Whoever sells, assigns or transfers any claim for debt against a resident of this state for the purpose of having the same collected by procedings in attachment in courts outside of this state * * * shall be fined, etc.
    Second. “Or whoever with intent to deprive a resident of this state of a right to have his personal earnings exempt from application to the payment of his debts, sends out of this state any claim for debt against such person for the purpose aforesaid, etc.” (that is for the purpose of having the same collected by proceedings in attachment in courts outside of this state) “shall be fined, etc.”
    Under the first provision above stated, an offense is committed by selling, assigning, or transferring a claim for debt for the purpose stated, whether the debtor has exemptions under the laws of this state or not. The offense is complete, according to the terms of this provision of the statute, when the sale is made for the purpose stated and is not determined or affected in any way by the exemption rights of the debtor under the laws of this state.
    We submit that such provision of the statute is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of the state of Ohio. Section 1, Art. 1 of the constitution of Ohio.
    It seems clear that this provision of the constitution guarantees to the citizen the right of acquiring' property by means of purchase as well as by any other lawful method, and acquisition by purchase of necessity requires that there should not only be a purchaser but a seller; hence the disposition by sale of one’s property under this provision is as fully guaranteed as its acquisition. Palmer v. Tingle, 55 Ohio St., 423; Coal Company v. Rosser, 53 Ohio St., 12; State v. Goodwill, 25 Am. St. Rep., 863; Section 19, Art. 1 of the constitution of Ohio.
    We submit that said Section 7014 violates Section 1, Art. 14 of the constitution of the United States . It unquestionably abridges the privileges of the citizen •and deprives him of his right of disposition of his property where the public welfare is in no way involved.
    We submit that Section 7014, Revised Statutes, is in violation of Section 2, Art. 4 of the constitution of the United States. It deprives citizens of Ohio of the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states by making it an offense for a citizen of Ohio to sell, assign or transfer his property, and by depriving him of the right of collecting his debts by proceedings in attachment in courts outside of the state when he has a right to prosecute attachment proceedings in Ohio in conformity with the laws of Ohio, and under the provision of this section of the constitution of the United States has the right to prosecute attachment proceedings in the state of West Virginia in conformity with the laws of West Virginia.
    
      P. S. Olmstead, for defendant in error.
    The statute in question in this case has been in force with but slight change, continuously for about twenty-two years. During this time it has been accepted by the public, and administered by the courts as a valid enactment. Its validity has never been challenged in this court nor in any circuit court of which any report was ever made.
    The object and purpose of this law (sec. 7014). was to protect the family of the debtor from want, and suffering. So that his personal earnings, when necessary for the support of his family, might be' saved and protected for that sole purpose.
    These exemption laws are enacted in the interest of humanity. They are established for public good,, for the well-being of society. Sears v. Hanks, 14 Ohio. St., 298; McConville v. Lee, 31 Ohio St., 447.
    The act under consideration only prohibits the sale, or transfer of claims under certain conditions and restriction, and these are in the interest of humanity and for the public good and general welfare of society.
    All property in this state is subject to such general regulations and restrictions as are necessary to the common good and general welfare.
    In the exercise of its police power, the state may regulate the conduct of its citizens, one towards the other, in the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulations become necessary for the public good.
    In view of these well settled principles of law we think this act is valid, and in support we cite the following authorities: Cooley Con. Lim., 5th Ed., pp. 707, 734, 735; State v. Powell, 58 Ohio St., 324; Palmer v. State, 39 Ohio St., 236; State v. Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St., 297; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio St., 209; Railway Co. v. Railway Co., 30 Ohio St., 604.
    Under the head of police powers many laws restricting the use, enjoyment and sale of property have been declared to be valid. Cooley, pages 706-7 and 8; Cooley, pages 739-40-41; 18 Am. and Ency., 755.
    
      In the state of Indiana a statute of a like kind was before the Supreme Court and was sustained. State v. Dittmar, 120 Ind., 54; 107 Ind., 490; 103 Ind., 328; 120 Ind., 388; 13 Appellate Ind., 401; 2 Appellate Ind., 492 and 488
    As to the other errors pointed out in the plaintiff’s brief, we will only say, that the amount involved in this action, exclusive of interest and costs, is $155. The case came into this court by reason of the constitutional question involved in it. As to anything else the judgment of the circuit court is final and conclusive, 93 O. L., 255; Section 6710.
    Hence this court will not, we think, consider any question, except the one that gave the court jurisdiction.
   By the Court:

As the amount involved is less than three hundred dollars, this court has jurisdiction of the case only by reason of the constitutionality of a statute being drawn in question, and our decision must therefore be confined to the question that gives us jurisdiction, •and the other questions argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiffs in error have not been considered, and are not decided, for the reason that we are without jurisdiction as to those questions in this case.

Section 7014, Revised Statutes is as follows:

“Whoever sells, assigns or transfers any claim or [for] debt against a resident of this state for the purpose of having the same collected by proceedings in attachment in courts outside of the state, or whoever, with intent to deprive a resident of this state of a right to have his personal earnings exempt from application to the payment of his debts, sends out of this state any claim for debt against such person for the purpose aforesaid, where the creditor and debtor and the person or corporation owing the money intended to be reached by such proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, shall be fined not more than fifty nor less than twenty dollars, and the person whose personal earnings are so attached shall have a right of action before any court of this state having jurisdiction, to recover the amount attached, and any costs paid by him in such attachment proceedings, either from the person so assigning, selling, transferring or sending such claim out of this state to be collected as aforesaid, or the person to whom such claim is assigned, sold, transferred or sent as aforesaid, or both, at the option of the person bringing such suit. The' assignment, sale, transfer- or sending of such claim to a person not a resident of this state, and the commencement of such proceedings in attachment shall be considered primafacie evidence of a violation of this section; and any person, or the agent of such person, who purchases, any claim within this state with the intent aforesaid, shall be subject to the fine herein provided.”

The purpose of this section is to protect our citizens, •in their rights relating to homesteads and exemptions, and as the statutes on that subject are constitutional, any statute which is reasonably in aid of' the right must also be constitutional, unless it should conflict with some other part of the constitution. We-find no such conflict. The section in question only prevents our own citizens from resorting to a sharp-trick or practice in another state to defeat the provisions of our exemption laws; and the general assembly has full powers to so protect our citizens.

Judgment affirmed.  