Statutes which exempt from levy and sale on execution, property which was not exempt when the contract was entered into are held by the majority of our courts to be invalid as impairing the obligation of contracts.1 Thus a statute exempting wages,2 or life insurance,3 or a homestead,4 as a homestead purchased with pension money,5 or one restricting a written waiver of exemptions which had before that time been held valid," are each unconstitutional. Such exemption laws are especially invalid if the claim is reduced to judgment before the law is passed, though an appeal is pending.7 Thus after a decree declaring the proceeds of certain life-insurance policies to be a part of the estate of the insured, the rights of creditors cannot be affected by a subsequent statute exempting life insurance policies from being applied to the debts of the insured.8 On the same principle a statute restoring the Common-Law right of dower is invalid as to prior creditors of a married man.9 Some authorities of considerable numerical strength hold that exemption laws affect the remedy primarily and not the right; that they are not invalid as impairing the obligation of contracts, at least if they are reasonable in the extent of the protection which they afford to the debtor.10 Thus an exemption of a homestead,11 or an exemption of personal earnings from attachment,12 is not invalid as to prior debts. Some authorities distinguish between the validity of exemption laws as applying to property then owned, or to that acquired after the statute takes effect, holding such laws valid as to the latter but invalid as to the former. Thus a statute relieving the produce of a married woman's lands from liability for her husband's debts is valid as to products subsequently grown, though the debt in question was incurred before the statute was passed.13 It may be here observed that the debtor has no vested right in his exemptions. Accordingly, a statute diminishing the amount which he may hold exempt does not impair the obligation of contracts.14 Thus a statute subjecting a homestead to a lien for materials furnished under a prior contract is valid.15

2 Von Baumbach v. Bade, 9 Wis. 559; 76 Am. Dee. 283.

3 Strong v. Daniel, 5 Ind. 348; Webster v. Rose, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 93; 19 Am. Rep. 583. Contra, Hol-loway v. Sherman, 12 la. 282; 79 Am. Dee. 537.

1 Swinburne v. Mills, 17 Wash. 611; 61 Am. St. Rep. 932; 50 Pac. 489 (citing McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. (TJ. S.) 608).

2 Phelps-Bigelow Windmill Co. v. Trust Co., 62 Kan. 529; 64 Pac. 63.

1 Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595; Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 610; reversing 44 Ga. 351; Adams v. Creen, 100 Ala. 218; 14 So. 54; Wilson v. Brown, 58 Ala. 62; 29 Am. Rep. 727; Willard v. Sturm, 96 la. 555; 65 N. W. 847;

Foster v. Byrne, 76 la. 295; 35 N. W. 513; 41 N. W. 22; Dunn v. Stevens, 62 Minn. 380; 64 N. W. 924; 65 N. W. 348; Johnson v. Fletcher, 54 Miss. 628; 28 Am. Rep. 388; Trimmier v. Winsmith, 41 S. C. 109; 19 S. E. 283; Skinner v. Holt, 9 S. D. 427; 62 Am. St. Rep. 878; 69 N. W. 595.

2 Willard v. Sturm, 96 la. 555; 65 N. W. 847.

3 Rice v. Smith, 72 Miss. 42; 16 So. 417; Skinner v. Holt, 9 S. D. 427; 62 Am. St. Rep. 878; 69 N. W. 595.

4 Dunn v. Stevens, 62. Minn. 380; 64 N. W. 924; 65 N. W. 348; Trimmier v. Winsmith, 41 S. C. 109; 19 S. E. 283.

5 Foster v. Byrne, 76 la. 295; 35 N. W. 513; 41 N. W. 22.

6 Adams v. Creen, 100 Ala. 218; 14 So. 54.

7 Skinner v. Holt, 9 S. D. 427; 62 Am. St. Rep. 878; 69 N. W. 595.

8 Skinner v. Holt, 9 S. D. 427; 62 Am. St. Rep. 878; 69 N. W. 595.

9 Patton v. Asheville, 109 N. C. 685; 14 S. E. 92. Contra. Currier v. Elliott, 141 Ind. 394; 39 N. E. 554.

10 Taylor v. Stockwell. 66 Ind. 505; Bigelow v. Pritchard, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 169; Dye v. Cooke, 88 Tenn. 275; 17 Am. St. Rep. 882; 12 S. W. 631; Folsom v. Asper, 25 Utah 299; 71 Pac. 315; Kirkman v. Bird, 22 169

Utah 100; 83 Am. St. Rep. 774; 58 L. R. A. 669; 61 Pac. 338. In addition to the cases cited in this note, many early cases, taking this position, have been overruled by the cases cited in the first note in this section.

11 Dye v. Cooke. 88 Tenn. 275; 17 Am. St. Rep. 882; 12 S. W. 631.

12 Kirkman v. Bird, 22 Utah 100; 83 Am. St. Rep. 774; 58 L. R. A. 669; 61 Pac. 338.

12 Niles v. Hall. 64 Vt. 453; 25 Atl. 479. Contra, Johnson v. Fletcher, 54 Miss. 628; 28 Am. Rep. 388.