the application of the exemption to particular items of personal property, the OMahoma Courts have long taken the position that exemption statutes are to be liberally construed. In fact, the OMahoma Supreme Court has stated on more than one occasion that where there is a doubt as to whether certain property is exempt or not, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the exemption. In re Fisher, 11 B.R. 666, 668 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1981) (citing Phelan v. Lacey, 51 Okla. 393, 151 P. 1070 (1915), and Nelson v. Fightmaster, 4 Okla. 38, 44 P. 213 (1896)). The Fisher Court held that the meaning of the word furniture should not be so limited as to exclude “mechanic devices” when interpreting the exemption statute." In re Fisher, supra, (citing Swisher v. Clark, 202 Okla. 25, 209 P.2d 880 (1949)) (<HOLDING>). Perhaps the best guidance on the scope of the
holding that because nondischargeable debt based on fraud was not one of the four enumerated exceptions to exempt property the exempt property was not liable for the creditors surviving claim holding vacuum cleaners and air conditioners to be exempt as household furnishings recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate holding that a mill and gin could be considered part of an exempt homestead if they were part of the exempt realty holding that although a close call a lawnmower was an appliance under the common use of that word and therefore exempt under as a household appliance under minnesota law