Jacoby v. Parkland Distilling Co.

• Decision Date: 15 July 1889
• Citation: 43 N.W. 52,41 Minn. 227
• Parties: JACOBY v PARKLAND DISTILLING CO. ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

41 Minn. 227

43 N.W. 52

JACOBYvPARKLAND DISTILLING CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 15, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. An insolvent debtor, in securing a homestead for himself and family by moving into and occupying as his dwelling a building which he owns, for the express purpose of holding it as exempt, takes nothing from his creditors in which they have any vested right, and hence commits no legal fraud. In thus putting his property into a shape in which it will be the subject of a beneficial provision for himself and family, he merely exercises a right which the law gives him.

2. The fact that in a financial statement, upon the faith of which he was given credit, he included the property as part of his assets, will not estop him, as against such creditors, from subsequently appropriating it as a homestead, and claiming its exemption.

3. The statute imposes no restrictions upon the uses of a homestead, provided only it is the dwelling of the claimant; following Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 154, (Gil. 124.)

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; YOUNG, Judge.

Action by Fanny Jacoby, to determine the adverse claims of defendants, the Parkland Distilling Company and others, to certain real property. The defendants respectively claimed a lien upon the premises by reason of certain judgments recovered by them against George G. Jacoby, the husband of plaintiff. Upon the trial, before the court without a jury, it was admitted that the debts for which defendants' judgments were recovered were incurred by George G. Jacoby prior to December, 1887; that the premises consist of a tract of land 66 by 165 feet, being one lot as originally platted in the city of Minneapolis, on which is erected a three-story brick building finished for stores below, and with rooms for residence above; that in December, 1887, Jacoby and plaintiff, his wife, moved into rooms in the second story of the building, and have ever since resided therein, and claimed the same as their homestead; that the several judgments of defendants were entered in March and April, 1888; that thereafter Jacoby and plaintiff conveyed the premises for a nominal consideration to one Lehmaier, who reconveyed the same to plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Spooner & Stevens and Ingersoll & Ovitt, for appellants.

Thomas Canty, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The evidence offered by the defendants, the exclusion of which is here assigned as error, may all be classified under two heads: First, evidence tending to prove that George C. Jacoby, an insolvent debtor, in contemplation of insolvency, moved into and made his dwelling in the property in controversy, which constitutes a large part of his assets, for the express purpose of holding it as a homestead, and thereby withdrawing it from the reach of his creditors; and, second, that in a financial statement made to defendants, and upon the faith of which they gave him credit for the claims upon which their judgments against him were recovered, he had included as part of his assets the property in question. It is claimed that the first would render the claim of homestead exemption fraudulent as to creditors, and that the second would estop Jacoby from claiming the exemption as against the defendants. There is nothing in either point. A debtor in...