Morrison v. Abbott
| Decision Date | 24 August 1880 |
| Citation | 6 N.W. 455,27 Minn. 116 |
| Parties | Dennis A. Morrison and another v. Nathan G. Abbott and Wife |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, where the action was tried before Vanderburgh, J., without a jury.
judgment reversed.
E. J Davenport, for appellants.
Albert B. Ovitt and Arthur J. Shores, for respondents, cited Sumner v. Sawtelle, 8 Minn. 272 (309;) Piper v Johnston, 12 Minn. 60; Rogers v. McCauley, 22 Minn. 384; Currier v. Sutherland, 54 N.H. 475, 486; Morgan v. Potter, 17 Hun. (N. Y.) 403; Huey's Appeal, 29 Pa. St. 219; Norris v. Kidd, 28 Ark. 485 493; Chambers v. Sallie, 29 Ark. 407; In re Graham, 2 Biss. 449; Pratt v. Burr, 5 Biss. 36; In re Dilliard, 9 Nat. Bank Reg. 8, 13; Riddle v. Shirley, 5 Cal. 488; Burtch v. Elliott, 3 Ind. 99; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 45.
On March 14, 1877, and for several years before that date, the defendant N. G. Abbott owned and occupied as his homestead an eighty-acre tract of land, situate in the county of Hennepin. On that day, being in "embarrassed and failing circumstances financially," he caused the land to be conveyed to his co-defendant wife, by means of a deed from him and her to one McIntosh, and a deed from McIntosh to her. There was no valuable consideration for either of these conveyances, and they were made for the purpose of transferring the property to the wife, so that she could hold it free from the claims of her husband's creditors. At the time of the conveyances, the defendant N. G. Abbott was indebted to the plaintiffs in something over $ 600, upon three overdue promissory notes. Having put the notes in judgment in the district court for said county of Hennepin, the plaintiffs bring this action for the purpose of subjecting the land to levy and sale to satisfy the same.
Under our homestead law, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 68, §§ 1, 8,) the land, while owned and held as a homestead by N. G. Abbott, was not "subject to attachment, levy, or sale upon execution, or any other process issuing out of any court within this state," and the judgment recovered was not "a lien on such homestead for any purpose whatever." Under these provisions of the statute, so long as a tract of land is the homestead of a debtor, his creditors (not mortgage creditors) cannot subject it to the payment of any claims which they may hold against him, nor to any lien for the securing of such claims, either for the present or the future. It is in every respect, and absolutely, out of their reach.
Section 8 of the homestead law authorizes him to sell and convey it without subjecting it by such sale and conveyance to the claims of creditors. This authority to sell and convey is unlimited. What the purpose or motive of the sale and conveyance are is wholly immaterial. The power to sell and convey is absolute. He may sell and convey a homestead of the value of $ 10,000 for a consideration of one dollar, and with the purpose and effect of putting the property in the hands of his wife or of any other person. See Drentzer v. Bell, 11 Wis. 119. It was thought by the learned judge below that this authority to sell and convey did not authorize a gift -- that is to say, a conveyance without actual valuable consideration. We do not agree to this construction. In our opinion, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial