In re Parmeter's Estate
| Decision Date | 13 March 1914 |
| Citation | 211 F. 757 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota |
| Parties | In re PARMETER'S ESTATE. |
F. C Heffron, of Dickinson, N.D., for trustee.
John Carmody, of Hillsboro, N.D., and T. F. Murtha, of Dickinson N.D., for bankrupt.
This cause comes on to be heard upon the certificate of the referee, certifying to the court for review his order made herein, directing the trustee to set over to the bankrupt, as exempt, the south half of the northeast quarter, and the south half of the northwest quarter of section 20, township 140, range 96.
The controversy arises out of the following facts: Vina Rasmussen filed upon the land as a government homestead on the 5th day of June, 1907, and was thereafter married to the bankrupt. Thereupon she and the bankrupt took up their home upon the land. Thereafter the wife made final commutation proof, under the homestead laws, and a final certificate was issued to her by the proper officers of the Land Department, on December 14, 1912. In March, 1913, the wife died, leaving the bankrupt, William J. Parmeter, her sole heir. There were no children born of the marriage, and there were no persons living with the bankrupt and dependent upon him, so as to make him the 'head of a family,' within the homestead law of the state of North Dakota. He could not, therefore claim the property as exempt as a homestead under the laws of the state. On June 5, 1913, the United States duly issued a patent for the land in favor of Vina Parmeter, and, under section 2448 of the United States Revised Statutes, the title to the land inured to, and became vested in, the above bankrupt, as the sole heir of the patentee. On the 26th day of June, 1913, the bankrupt filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy herein. None of the debts scheduled in his list of liabilities were incurred subsequent to the issuance of the patent. He claims the land as exempt under section 2296 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which reads as follows:
'No land acquired under the provisions of this chapter shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuing of the patent therefor.'
Inasmuch as all of the bankrupt's debts were incurred prior to the issuing of the patent, he claims that he holds the property exempt from such debts, by reason of this section. The case turns upon whether the exemption mentioned in the statute is confined to the debts of the patentee, to whom the government issues the patent, or runs with the land, and inures to the benefit of the patentee's heirs and assigns, so as to be exempt also from their debts contracted before the issuance of the patent. The referee held the exemption extended to the debts of the bankrupt, as the heir of the patentee. The trustee insists that the exemption should be confined to the debts of the patentee.
Section 2296 has not been literally construed by the courts. It has been uniformly held that the homestead is liable, at least after final proof, for liens voluntarily impressed thereon by the homesteader, and subject to sale for the payment of the debt secured by such liens. It has been the practice for more than a generation for homestead entrymen to borrow the money with which to make their final proofs, and pay the commutation price for the land, and give back a mortgage upon the homestead as security, and such mortgages have been sustained by the courts, and enforced against the homestead, although they were created frequently years before the issuance of the patent. In this way an exception has been built up to the general language of section 2296, and the words 'any debt,' contained in the section, have been held to mean general contract debts as to which no specific lien was voluntarily impressed upon the homestead by the entryman. Stark...
To continue reading
Request your trial