Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Metcalf's Estate

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1933No. 7,002Published

1DissentJustice Angstman

I do not agree with the majority that the benefits of section 10145 can be availed of only by residents. It is not an exemption statute any more than is section 10146. Both were intended to make provision for the support of the family of the decedent. This is made plain by the title of the chapter in which the sections are found, which is entitled “Provisions for the support of the family.” The same is apparent also from the wording of the sections.

It is true that the exemptions provided for by section 9428 are available only to bona fide residents of the state. The insured, father of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Dougherty v. DoughertyMontana Supreme Court · 1906
  2. White v. BickfordTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
  3. In Re Estate of MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Hascall v. HaffordTennessee Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Krumenacker v. AndisNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API