At the trial of the case of Pond vs. Kimball, in the Superior Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, it appeared that plaintiffs were copartners; that all the property attached was partnership property; and that some, if not all, of it came within the exemption of the statute, part as tools and implements, part as materials and stock, unless the fact that it was partnership property prevented its coming within such exemption. The presiding judge ruled that the fact that it was partnership property did not render it liable to attachment if it would otherwise have been exempt. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, which said:

"The exemption, in our opinion, is several, and not joint. It applies to the debtor in the singular number, and is personal and individual only. If he desires to form a partnership and combine his means with those of one, or more than one other person, he must take the precaution to retain exclusive ownership of his tools and implements, allowing the use of them to his associates, or he will lose entirely the benefit of the statutory exemptions as to that kind of property." 22

21 Poillon vs. Secor, 61 N. Y., 456.

22 Bond vs. Kimball, 101 Mass., 105.