Skouten v. Wood

• Decision Date: 31 August 1874
• Citation: 57 Mo. 380
• Parties: LUOINDA SKOUTEN AND JOSHUA SKOUTEN, Defendants in Error, v. MARY WOOD, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 380

LUOINDA SKOUTEN AND JOSHUA SKOUTEN, Defendants in Error,

v.MARY WOOD, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1874.

Error to Buchanan Circuit Court.

Thomas & Tyler, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. Wood, at the time of his death, held the homestead in fee simple absolute, and under the homestead act properly construed (Wagn. Stat., 698, § 5,) the widow held it by the same title.

H. M. Ramey, for Defendants in Error.

I. The statute in relation to the exemption of homesteads, was only intended to operate as a protection against creditors in attachments or executions, and not to defeat the interest of the heirs. (Wagn. Stat., 697, § 1.)

II. We have a statute governing the manner of the descent and distribution of the estate of intestates. (Wagn. Stat., 529, § 1). To give the construction to the homestead act, contended for by the plaintiff in error, would render the statute concerning assignment of dower and the distribution of estates nugatory, and operate as a repeal of them.NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Under the 5th section of the act concerning homesteads (Wagn. Stat., p. 698), the defendant, who was the widow of Bird Wood, had been allowed as a homestead 120 acres of the estate of her deceased husband.

The deceased left no minor children; but had several children by a former wife, who were of age and married. The plaintiff is a daughter of Wood, and wife of Skouten, and filed in the Circuit Court a petition to enjoin the defendant from wasting the timber on the said 120 acres. A temporary injunction was granted and ultimately this injunction was made final.

The propriety of this action of course depends on the question whether the homestead of the wife, assigned to her by the Probate Court, was a life estate, or a fee simple. The husband died seized of a fee simple estate and the question depends on the proper construction of the 5th section of the homestead law.

That section reads thus: “If any housekeeper or head of a family shall die, leaving a widow or any minor children, his homestead to the value aforesaid ($1,500,) shall pass to and vest in such widow or children, or if there be both, to such widow and children, without being subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased, unless legally charged therein (thereon) in his lifetime; and such widow and children, respectively, shall take the same estate therein of which the deceased died seized, provided, that such children shall, by force of this chapter, only have an interest in such homestead until they shall attain their majority: and the Probate Court having the jurisdiction of the estate of such deceased housekeeper or head of a family, shall, when necessary, appoint three commissioners to set out such homestead to the person or persons entitled thereto.”

This act concerning homesteads is a literal copy of the Vermont statute on this subject (See Stat. of Vermont, p. 456). There are sections of the Vermont statute omitted, but the 5th section of our act is an exact copy, with a mere verbal alteration, evidently occasioned by the blunder of the copyist or printer.

In construing a legislative enactment of another State, or of a foreign country, it is a well settled practice of all courts to adopt the interpretation of the law which the highest judicial tribunals of such State or foreign country have given to it, and this practice is based on the presumption that the judicial branch of the government whose legislative branch passed a law, is the most competent to determine the meaning and effect of such law; and, when such law comes up before a foreign tribunal, the construction given to it by the judiciary of the State where it originated, is held to be conclusive in the foreign tribunal. Hence the federal courts of this country have always held that the construction of State laws by the State judiciary, was binding on them; at least, that was the rule from the origin of the federal government until very recently, and citation of authorities to that effect is unnecessary.

And so, if a law of France or England, is in...