Nickerson v. Crawford

Citation77 N.W. 292,74 Minn. 366
PartiesNICKERSON et al. v. CRAWFORD et al.
Decision Date02 December 1898
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Sherburne county; William A. Lancaster, Acting Judge.

Action by Thomas S. Nickerson and others against Mary Jane Crawford and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Section 12 of article 1 of the constitution of the state provides that ‘all property so exempted [in pursuance of the first clause of the section] shall be liable to seizure and sale for any debt incurred to any person for work done or materials furnished in the construction or improvement of the same.’ Held, that this provision is self-executing, and has the effect of subjecting property exempt from other debts to seizure and sale for the debts specified to the same extent, and in the same manner, as if no exemption law existed.

2. Where the debt is for materials furnished to erect a dwelling on a homestead, the creditor can obtain an ordinary money judgment, and seize and sell the property on execution, the same as any other real estate of his debtor.

3. The land remains subject to seizure and sale in favor of a transferee of the debt, and although promissory notes of the debtor may have been taken as evidences of it, and renewed from time to time. Chas. S. Wheaton, for appellants.

Frank T. White, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

The defendant Mary Jane Crawford was the owner of 80 acres of land, which she occupied, and still occupies, as a homestead. In 1891 she purchased from the plaintiffs a quantity of lumber for the purpose of erecting, and which was actually used in erecting, a dwelling house on the premises. For the purchase price of the lumber she executed to the plaintiffs two promissory notes. One of these notes the plaintiffs discounted at a bank, guarantying payment. When this note matured, it was renewed by defendant giving a new note, indorsed by the plaintiffs, and payable to the bank. This note was renewed from time to time by other notes of like tenor. The defendant having failed to pay the last renewal note, the plaintiffs, as indorsers, were compelled to pay it; the bank transferring it to them. On this note and the other note retained by the plaintiffs they brought an ordinary action for the recovery of money, and obtained a judgment against the defendant, on which they caused execution to be issued, and the land already referred to to be levied on and sold, they themselves being the purchasers at the execution sale. The time of redemption having expired, and no redemption having been made, the plaintiffs brought this action to recover possession of the premises.

1. Article 1, § 12, of the constitution, as originally adopted, provided that ‘a reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure and sale for the payment of any debt or liability; the amount of such exemption shall be determined by law.’ This was not self-executing, but contemplated and required legislative action to carry it into effect. Kelly v. Dill, 23 Minn. 435. The legislature did carry it into effect by passing a law determining the amount of the exemption. In 1888 this section of the constitution was amended by adding thereto: ‘Provided however that all property so exempted shall be liable to seizure and sale for any debts incurred to any person for work done or materials furnished in the construction, repair or improvement of the same: and provided further that such liability to seizure and sale shall also extend to all real property for any debt incurred to any laborer or servant for labor or service performed.’ These provisos were clearly self-executing. Willis v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • State v. Stockwell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • October 12, 1911
    ......985, 24. So. 132; Winchester v. Howard, 136 Cal. 432, 89 Am. St. Rep. 193, 64 P. 692, 69 P. 77; Mallon v. Hyde, . 76 F. 388; Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366, 73. Am. St. Rep. 354, 77 N.W. 292; Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Funk, 49 Neb. 353, 68 N.W. 520. . . ......
  • H.E. Westerman Lumber Co. v. Raschke
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • July 15, 1927
    ...created by an attachment, by an acknowledgment filed, by docketing a judgment against the debtor, or by filing a mechanic's lien. Nickerson v. Crawford, supra; Bagley v. Pennington, 76 Minn. 226, 78 N.W. 1113, 77 Am. St. Rep. 637; In re Hassler (D.C.) 204 F. 139, 29 Am. Bankr. Rep. 502; H.E......
  • Wallace T. Bruce, Inc. v. Najarian, 36912
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 21, 1957
    ...the same, unless it is established that the note taken was in fact taken in absolute payment of the debt. As stated in Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366, 77 N.W. 292, the constitutional provisos applicable to the present situation are clearly self-executing and require no legislation to c......
  • Curran v. Nash, 34488.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • October 31, 1947
    ......It provides only that the property which otherwise would have been exempt shall be liable to seizure and sale for such debts. In Nickerson v. Crawford, 74 Minn. 366, 369, 77 N.W. 292, 293, 73 Am.St. Rep. 354, where the claim was that this provision of the constitution created a lien, the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT