Hartman v. Munch
This text of 21 Minn. 107 (Hartman v. Munch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Adam Munch was assignee of two school-[108]*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, Gen. Stat., as we have determined at this term in Wilder v. Haughey, ante, p. 101, the court below was right in holding the assignment to be invalid.
The return is not in a condition to enable us to consider the point made as to the entry of judgment, or the alleged failure to attach a copy thereof to the roll.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 Minn. 107, 1874 Minn. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-munch-minn-1874.