81 Mo. 254 (Mo. 1883), Stinde v. Behrens

Citation:81 Mo. 254
Opinion Judge:HOUGH, C. J.
Party Name:STINDE v. BEHRENS et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
Attorney:Sam'l N. Holliday for plaintiffs in error. Finkelnburg & Rassieur for defendant in error.
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 254

81 Mo. 254 (Mo. 1883)



BEHRENS et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883

Error to St. Louis Court of Appeals.


Sam'l N. Holliday for plaintiffs in error.

1. It is no concern of the creditor to which member of the family, husband or wife, the homestead belongs. Thompson on Homesteads, § 224; Hixon v. George, 18 Kas. 253; Monroe v. May, 9 Kas. 466. 2. The Atchison property was the homestead of Rudolph Behrens, his wife and four minor children, and was totally exempt from all process, and could not even be conveyed by him alone nor incumbered, and no creditor could reach it or touch it. Morris v. Ward, 5 Kas. 259; Dollman v. Harris, 5 Kas. 597; Monroe v. May, 9 Kas. 466; Moore v. Reeves, 15 Kas. 150; La Rue v. Gilbert, 18 Kas. 222; Coughlin v. Coughlin, 26 Kas. 116. 3. The homestead in Atchison being exempt from execution, the debtor could not commit fraud upon his creditor by disposing of it; he could only commit a fraud on his creditors by disposing of such of his property as the creditor had the legal right to look to for the payment of his debt. Hixon v. George, 18 Kas. 253; New Orleans v. Morris, 105 U.S. 600; Deutzer v. Bell, 11 Wis. 114; Pikes v. Miles, 23 Wis. 164; Bond v. Seymour, 1 Chandler (Wis.) 40; Vaughan v. Thompson, 17 Ill. 80; Wood v. Chambers, 20 Tex. 247, 254; Cox v. Shropshire, 25 Tex. 113, 124; Smith v. Allen, 39 Miss. 469; Mortel v. Somers, 26 Tex. 551; Lisby v. Perry, 6 Bush. 515; Anthony v. Wade, 1 Bush. 110; Morton v. Ragan, 5 Bush. 334; Foster v. McGregor, 11 Vt. 595; Bump on Fr. Con., p. 268; Story's Eq. Jur., (6 Ed.) p. 411, § 367, and cases cited; Sumner v. McCray, 60 Mo. 493; Winchester v. Gaddy, 72 N.C. 115; Monroe v. May, 9 Kas. 466; Hibbern v. Soyer, 33 Wis. 319; Stewart v. Wooley, 2 W. Z. M. 470. 4. The wife has an estate in the homestead in Kansas--a valuable property right. Helm v. Helm, 11 Kas. 19; Brandon v. Brandon, 14 Kas. 342; Moore v. Reeves, 15 Kas. 150; Wicks v. Smith, 21 Kas. 412; Otto v. Sprague, 27 Kas. 620; Hixon v. George, 18 Kas. 253; Hammond v. Sommer, U. S. Cir. Ct. 1881, Fed. Reporter, March 28th, 1882, p. 601; Citizens' Bank v. Bowen, 25 Kas. 117. 5. The execution of the deed of conveyance of the homestead by the wife, was a sufficient consideration on her part to entitle her to receive the proceeds of the sale as her own property. Citizens' Bank v. Bowen, 25...

To continue reading