incorporated in the abstract; but the appraisement was before the trial court, and we must presume that it showed the value placed by the appraisers upon each article, or lot of property claimed as exempt. With this appraisement before it, the trial court told the jury, in effect, that. the appraised value of the property claimed did not exceed the sum of $1,500. We cannot say that the trial court erred, because the incomplete abstract before us does not conclusively establish the correctness of the instruction. Error must affirmatively appear.
The action of Dodson, Fisher & Brockman, was on account for goods sold and delivered. Section 5137, Comp. laws, provides that no property shall be exempt from siezure on execution issued for the purchase price thereof. The trial court charged that the burden was upon appellant to show what property, if any, that was claimed by respondent as exempt, had been purchased from Dodson, Fisher & Brockman, and the purchase price of which was included in the account sued upon. In this there was no error. When respondent established that he was the owner of the property, and that its value did not exceed $1,500, and that he had made a proper demand therefore, he showed a prima facie case of exemption. If it was not exempt, it was by reason of some exception to the general law, and the party who claims the benefit of such an exception must bring himself within its terms. Paddock v. Balgord, supra.
It appears that respondent had been in the habit of purchasing goods from different parties, and, when received, he placed them upon his shelves indiscriminately; so that, when the same character and quality of goods were purchased from different parties, and placed upon the shelves, it became impossible to say what articles were purchased from one party, and what from another. As the goods purchased from Dodson, Fisher & Brockman, were liable to seizure in an action for the purchase price thereof, and as such goods could not certainly be. identified by reason of the mixture made}by respondent, it is claimed that thereby the whole stock became liable to seizure. We cannot assent to this proposition.
