How v. How

• Decision Date: 14 December 1894
• Citation: 61 N.W. 456,59 Minn. 415
• Parties: HOW ET AL. v. HOW ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

59 Minn. 415

61 N.W. 456

HOW ET AL.

v.HOW ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 14, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Held, section 17, c. 184, Gen. Laws 1885, purports to exempt from seizure for the debts of the insured and beneficiary the insurance money payable by all mutual insurance companies doing business in this state, and of which the insured is a member; that the only limit to the amount of insurance money thus attempted to be exempted is the aggregate capacity or power of all such companies doing business in this state to insure the life of one individual, and that this is no proper or reasonable limitation; that the amount thus exempted is unreasonable; and that this section is unconstitutional and void under section 12 of article 1 of the constitution.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; Francis Cadwell, Judge.

In the matter of the assignment of Mary M. How to Orrin Kipp for the benefit of her creditors. On petition of the assignee to the court to adjudge whether amounts due on certain policies listed by insolvent in her inventory were exempt, the court held the amount so due exempt, and ordered the assignee not to claim the same. From this order, three of the creditors appeal. Reversed.

Southworth & Coller (O. E. Holman, of counsel), for appellants.

H. J. Peck and J. L. Macdonald, for respondents.

CANTY, J.

On February 24, 1894, Mary M. How, being insolvent, made an assignment for the benefit of her creditors under the insolvency laws of this state. A short time prior to this, her husband, David L. How, died. His life was insured in eight different mutual benefit associations or insurance companies for the total aggregate amount of $15,800, she being the beneficiary entitled to all of said insurance. She listed all of these insurance claims in her inventory, but claims all of them as exempt, and so claimed them then in said inventory. The assignee, on notice to her and her creditors, petitioned the court in the insolvency proceedings to determine and adjudge whether the amounts due on said policies were exempt. She appeared in support of such application, and a number of her creditors appeared in opposition thereto. The court below held the amounts so due on such insurance policies exempt, and directed the assignee not to claim the same, and from this order three of said creditors appeal to this court. No objection is here made to the mode of proceeding in the district court, and we do not wish to be understood as approving that practice where the fund in controversy is not in court, and the application is opposed by the creditors, or most of the creditors, appearing.

It is urged by respondent that the order appealed from is not an appealable order. We are of the opinion that it is appealable, under either subdivision 5 or 6 of section 8, c. 86, Gen. St. 1878.

Section 2, c. 128, Gen. Laws 1877 (section 369, c. 34, Gen. St. 1878) provides: “When any benevolent association or society, similar to those enumerated in section one of this act, set apart or appropriated a beneficiary fund to be paid over to the families of deceased, or to any member of said families, any such fund not exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars, so provided and set apart, according to the rules, regulations or by-laws of said association or society, to the family of any deceased member, or to any member of said family, shall be exempt from execution, and shall under no circumstances be liable to be seized, taken or appropriated by any legal or equitable process, to pay any debt of such deceased member.” Section 17, c. 184, Gen. Laws 1885, provides: “The money or other benefit, charity, relief or aid to be paid, provided...