
    *Henry Ostrander v. Lorenzo D. Packer.
    
      Statutory exemptions: Team-. Where a party is entitled to hold a team as exempt from execution, an officer, claiming that what the debtor has which will answer the designation is of greater value than the statute exempts, should levy on the whole and have it appraised, to give opportunity for the selection the statute contemplates, and he cannot lawfully levy upon and nold a horse of less value than the exemption allowed hy the statute, and which the debtor claims and is entitled to retain as exempt, though the debtor have other property of the same class.
    
    
      Submitted on briefs January 4.
    
    
      Decided January 16.
    
    Error to Saginaw Circuit.
    This was replevin, brought by Packer to recover a horse, which Ostrander, as deputy sheriff, bad levied upon and taken by virtue of a writ of attachment against Packer. The horse was claimed by Packer to be exempt' from execution, and it was shown that he was engaged in a business which required the use of a team. The value of the horse was variously estimated by the witnesses at from one hundred to two hundred and fifty dollars, and it was shown that Packer also had at the time another horse and a harness. There was also evidence that the horse in question was a trotting horse and had previously been kept in training for that purpose. The judgment below was for the plaintiff, and defendant brought error.
    
      3. 3 3oyt, for plaintiff in error.
    
      James JB. Peter, for defendant in erro».
    
      
       When a levy is made upon a class of property exempt from execution, to a specified amount or value, the officer should make an inventory of the whole of such property belonging to the debtor, within his bailiwick, and cause the same to he appraised, and allow the debtor to select his exemption therefrom: Elliott v. Whitmore, 5 Mich., 536; Wydkoffv. Willis, 8 Id., 49; Sheldon v. Rounds, 40 Id., 427; Vanderhorst v. Bacon, 38 Id., 672. And a failure to make such inventory and appraisal and give opportunity for selection will invalidate the levy to the amount of the statutory exemptions: Town v. Elmore, 38 Id., 305. And the debtor is not hound to give notice of claim of exemptions: Vanderhorst v. Bacon, supra.
      The sheriff’s officer must so execute writs entrusted to him as to do as little injury to debtors as possible; and where it is important to the debtor’s business to have the benefit of his exemptions the officer is bound to act promptly, in setting them off to him: Randy v. Clippeii, 50 Mich., 355. Creditors have no rights against property exempt from execution. And the officer making levy is as much hound to respect such exemption, where the property is partnership property, as in other cases: Waite v. Mathews, 50 Id.', 392. A yoke of oxen may embrace a pair of two-year-old steers, fit to be used for light work, although not yet broken: Berg v. Baldwin, (Minn.) Vol. 18. No. 13 N. "W. Kep., 821.
    
   Cooley, Ch. J.t

We think the circuit judge was correct in instructing the jury that on the undisputed facts of the case the plaintiff was entitled to recover. He was entitled to exemption for a team, and if the officer claimed that what he had which would answer the designation was of greater value than the *statute exemption, he should have levied on the whole and had it appraised, to give opportunity for the selection the statute provides for. This was not done, the officer erroneously believing no exemption was allowable.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The other justices concurred.  