In re Elston

• Decision Date: 18 February 1927
• Docket Number: No. 3407.,3407.
• Citation: 17 F.2d 495
• Parties: In re ELSTON.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

17 F.2d 495 (1927)

In re ELSTON.

No. 3407.

District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

February 18, 1927.

Iver C. Nelson, of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.

Charles H. Winter, of St. Paul, Minn., for trustee.

JOHN B. SANBORN, District Judge.

In his schedules in bankruptcy, the bankrupt listed as assets: Twenty-one acres of field corn, 8 acres of fodder corn, 1½ acres of late potatoes, 1 ton of hay, 40 bushels of barley, 200 bushels of succotash, and 60 bushels of potatoes. In the schedules, he made his claim for exemption as follows:

"Bankrupt claims as exempted on property allowed him by section 7951 of the General Statutes of the state of Minnesota for the year 1913, set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 of said section, including all other farming utensils including tackle for teams not exceeding $300 in value and more particularly all of his hay, corn, potatoes, succotash, oats, barley, household goods, wearing apparel, now in the possession of this bankrupt and used and kept by the bankrupt and his family for their maintenance and support, $500."

The trustee, in his report of exempted property, designated and set apart to be retained by the bankrupt as property exempt by state laws, all wearing apparel of the bankrupt and his family, and household goods of the value of $500, and 15 bushels of potatoes, of the value of $8. The bankrupt took exception to the report of the trustee, and a hearing was had before the referee in bankruptcy.

The bankrupt undertook to show that, under subdivision 6 of section 9447, General Statutes of Minnesota 1923, he was entitled to food for three cows, ten swine, one yoke of oxen, and a horse, or in lieu of such oxen and horse a span of horses or mules, 100 chickens, and 20 sheep. He did not claim to have this stock, but merely claimed all of the farm produce under the provisions of that subdivision. Subdivision 6 reads as follows:

"Three cows, ten swine, one yoke of oxen and a horse, or in lieu of such oxen and horse, a span of horses or mules, one hundred chickens, twenty sheep, and the wool from the same, either in raw material or manufactured into yarn or cloth; food for all the stock above mentioned necessary for one year's support, either provided or growing, or both, as the debtor may choose; one wagon, cart, or dray, one sleigh, two plows, one drag; and other farming utensils, including tackle for teams, not exceeding three hundred dollars in value."

In the case of Olin v. Fox, 79 Minn. 459, 82 N. W. 858, where the provisions of this subdivision were in question, the Supreme Court held that, in order to have the benefit of the exemption of food for the stock mentioned, it is not required that the debtor shall own all of the stock or animals mentioned in the section under which food exemption is claimed. In that case, the court said:

"It is true that our construction leads to an exemption of food for stock in the hands of a person who has none of the animals mentioned, and no intention of obtaining them, but the remedy to be applied is with the Legislature."

The Legislature has apparently not applied...