Dunn v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 11 November 1895
• Docket Number: Nos. 9523 - (18).,s. 9523 - (18).
• Citation: 62 Minn. 380
• Parties: ANDREW C. DUNN v. GALLOWAY K. STEVENS, Administrator, and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 380

62 Minn. 380

ANDREW C. DUNN v. GALLOWAY K. STEVENS, Administrator, and Others.¹

Nos. 9523 - (18).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 11, 1895.

Appeal by Andrew C. Dunn from a judgment of the district court for Blue Earth county, entered in pursuance of the findings and order of Severance, J. Reversed.

Benjamin D. Smith, for appellant.

Lorin Cray, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

In August, 1886, the appellant, Dunn, obtained a judgment against Nathaniel Stevens for over $400. At that time, and up to the time of his decease, Stevens owned, and occupied as his homestead, 80 acres of land. In April, 1891, Stevens died intestate, leaving surviving him, as his only heirs, nine children, all over the age of majority; but he left no widow. According to the statutes in force in this state at the time Dunn obtained his judgment, the 80 acres would have been assets of the estate of Stevens for the payment of his debts, and would have descended to his heirs subject to that charge. McCarthy v. Von Der Mey, 42 Minn. 189, 44 N. W. 53; McGowan v. Baldwin, 46 Minn. 477, 49 N. W. 251. The law in this regard was changed by the Probate Code of 1889, which provides that the homestead of the deceased shall descend to his heirs, according to a specified order of descent, "free from all debts or claims upon the estate of the deceased." G. S. 1894, § 4470.² In the due course of administration Dunn presented his judgment as a claim against Stevens' estate, and it was allowed by the probate court, but there was no property belonging to the estate out of which to pay it, unless it be the land referred to. Upon petition of the heirs, the probate court made an order assigning the land to them, "free from all debts and claims upon the estate of said deceased." This order was, on appeal, affirmed by the district court, and Dunn appeals to this court; his contention being that the land was subject to the payment of his claim, and should have been applied, as far as necessary, to that purpose.

The question presented is whether the act of 1889, providing that land which was the homestead of an intestate at the time of his death should descend to his heirs, free and clear of the debts of the deceased, is invalid as to debts contracted prior to its enactment, because it impairs the obligation of such contracts. As this is a question arising under the federal constitution, the decisions of the supreme court of the United States are necessarily controlling. We think the case is more than covered by the decision of that court in Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595, since several times cited with approval by the same court. The constitution of North Carolina exempted from sale on execution a homestead not exceeding in value $1,000. Prior to the adoption of the constitution, there was no homestead exemption in that state. The court held, in the case cited, that this provision of the constitution was invalid as regards contracts made before its adoption because it impaired their obligation; that the remedy subsisting in a state when and where a contract is made, and is to be performed, is a part of its obligation, and any subsequent law of the state, which so affects that remedy as substantially to impair and lessen the value of the contract, impairs its obligation and is forbidden by the constitution. Whatever may be thought of the correctness of that decision, and whatever doubts may remain as to just how far that court may hold that a state may go in changing the remedy without impairing the obligation of existing contracts, the doctrine of the court clearly is that any statute, enacted after a contract is made, which so materially increases the exemptions to the debtor as to substantially impair or lessen the value of the contract is, as respects it, invalid.

That Dunn's judgment was a contract goes without saying. Under the laws in force when it was rendered, this land would, upon Stevens' death, have become assets for the...