In re Smith's Estate
| Citation | 51 Minn. 316 |
| Parties | <I>In re</I> JOHANN JACOB SMITH'S ESTATE. |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1892 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Johann Jacob Smith died testate in Brown County on February 15, 1891. At the time of his death he was the owner of "Out lot No. 469," containing about four acres of land, in the city of New Ulm. This lot was and had been occupied for more than five years, as the homestead of deceased. Mari Louise Smith, the widow of deceased, petitioned the Probate Court of Brown County, to have set apart to her as her homestead, this out lot. The petition was denied, and the District Court, on appeal, affirmed the order, and remanded the case to the Probate Court for further proceedings. From this order, this appeal was taken.
Lind & Hagberg, for appellant.
Francis Baasen, for respondent.
This case illustrates the embarrassments that are liable to arise in construing the very crude provisions of our homestead exemption law.
The map and stipulation of facts contained in the settled case fully explains the situation. Some time prior to 1858 the German Land Association acquired title to some 5,000 acres of land where the city of New Ulm is now situated. The association executed and filed a plat of the land on which the central part of the tract was laid out into city or village blocks and lots of the ordinary size, each block being surrounded by streets and subdivided into lots, with alleys running through the blocks so as to give access to the rear of the lots, thus indicating that they were intended for strictly urban purposes.
The remainder of the land was divided into tracts containing from four to ten acres each. These "out lots," as they are termed in the stipulation of facts, were not subdivided. As a general rule, sufficient streets were laid out between them to give access to each, although a good many are inaccessible from any street. It is also stipulated that the business, and, as a rule, the resident, part of the city, is confined within the portion platted and laid out into blocks and lots, while the out lots are used for residence and agricultural purposes. This fact, however, has little or no bearing upon the legal question involved in the case.
The deceased at the time of his death owned and lived upon one of these out lots, containing four acres, using it for agricultural purposes. At that time the population of New Ulm was about 4,000. The question presented is whether the widow is entitled to the whole four acres, or to only one-half acre, as the homestead of her deceased husband. This, in turn, depends upon the question whether this four-acre tract is "within the laid-out or platted portion" of the city, within the meaning of 1878 G. S. ch. 68, § 1.
We have concluded, although with some hesitation, that it is not, and for the following reasons:
Our statutes, like those of most states, have always in some form made a distinction between rural and urban homesteads. Under the act of 1858, which remained in force until 1875, the distinction was made to rest arbitrarily upon the fact whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial