Brixius v. Reimringer
| Decision Date | 14 June 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,233 - (154) |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 273,101 Minn. 347 |
| Parties | A. BRIXIUS v. NICHOLAS REIMRINGER and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover possession of certain real estate. The case was tried before Kelly, J who found in favor of defendants. From orders denying motions for amending the findings of fact and the conclusions of law and for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Homestead.
Two separate ten-acre parcels of land, touching only at the corners, between which is a regular roadway, if owned occupied, and cultivated as one farm, may constitute a homestead, although the residence and appurtenances are all located upon one tract.
F. H. Lindsley and Thomas Kneeland, for appellant.
Peter J. Healy and John B. Olivier, for respondents.
For many years respondents owned and occupied a ten-acre tract of land, upon which was located the residence and necessary buildings, and also owned and farmed, in connection therewith, another ten-acre tract upon which were no buildings. The two pieces touched only at the corner. Appellant succeeded to a judgment against respondents, under which he sold the tract not occupied by buildings, and brought this action in ejectment to recover possession thereof. The trial court found for respondents upon the ground that the land was exempt from the judgment lien, for the reason that it was a part of respondents' homestead. The court found, from the evidence, that ever since 1899 respondents occupied and claimed the twenty acres as their homestead; that they passed and repassed from the one piece of land to the other on a farm road, which for eight years they had constantly used for domestic and farming purposes, and during all of such time occupied and cultivated the entire twenty acres as their homestead.
In the case of Kresin v. Mau, 15 Minn. 87 (116), this court held that two tracts of land merely touching at a corner did not constitute one body or tract of land, and therefore the tract on which the buildings were not located did not constitute a part of the homestead. If in that case it had been made to appear that the two tracts were used and cultivated as one farm, and that there was a regular passageway, or road, connecting the property, we doubt whether the court would have so held. The constitutional provision is: It was held in an early case -- Cogel v. Mickow, 11 Minn. 354 (475) -- that the amount of property constituting the exemption could be measured by its area as well as by its cash value, and that the homestead act was constitutional.
The language of that act, viz.: "* * * Consisting of any quantity of land not...
To continue reading
Request your trial