Hartman v. Munch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the district court for Sibley county, to recover possession of a tract of land in that county, containing eighty acres, and was tried before Ghat-field, J. and a jury. The evidence introduced by the plaintiff having established the facts stated in the following opinion, the action was dismissed on the defendant’s motion, and a judgment of dismissal and for costs was entered in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
Adam Munch was assignee of two school-*108land certificates, of the same character as those considered in Wilder v. Haughey (ante, p. 101). It appeared that he had assigned the certificates to the plaintiff, but that the defendant (his wife) did not join in the assignment. It also appeared that at the time when the assignment was executed, the premises covered by the certificates were occupied by said Adam and the defendant, they claiming the same as a homestead. The right and interest of said Adam being such as to entitle him to hold the premises as a homestead, under the provisions of ch. 68,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wheatley v. GriffinTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Smith v. LackorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Randal v. ElderSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873