Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Lindberg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Lindberg

206 N.W. 929, 165 Minn. 492, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1105

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 15, 1926

DocketNo. 24,994.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 N.W. 929 (Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Lindberg) 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.

Bluebook

Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Lindberg, 206 N.W. 929, 165 Minn. 492, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1105 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

.Appeal from an order of the district court of Morrison county sustaining an order of the probate court setting apart 80 acres, as the homestead of Charles A. Lindberg, deceased, to Evangeline Lindberg, his surviving widow. Mr. and Mrs. Lindberg were married in 1901. They immediately took up their abode upon the 80 in question and occupied the same as their homestead until 1923. In their early married life, one child was born to them, Charles A. Lindberg, Jr. The father died on May 24, 1924. His estate was admitted to probate, in the usual course, shortly after his demise. The 80 in question was set apart, as the homestead, to the surviving widow. An appeal was taken to the district court where the order of the probate court was affirmed, and the case comes to this court by appeal. The sole question upon this appeal is whether the order of the district court is justified by the proofs in the record. We answer the query in the affirmative.

Deceased was a member of Congress from 1907 to 1917 and he was much engaged in political work through the Middlewest up to the time of his death and was away from home much of the time. Mrs. Lindberg, in the meantime, looked after the home. When the son went away to school, she was alone much of the time. The finances ran low and she went out and taught school, but retained the home, leaving the household *493 goods and furniture in place. Shé testified, as did the son, that Mr. Lind-berg kept and used a room in the house for his political work and that they occupied the place as their home always. She testified that she and Mr. Lindberg lived together as husband and wife all the time; that she lived in the house a number of days in December, 1923, and that her husband was there with her. In this she was corroborated by the son.

The theory of appellant was that the homestead had been abandoned. We find no evidence in the record to support this theory. It nowhere appears that there was an intention on the part of any member of the family to abandon the home. Upon the contrary, it was kept in readiness for occupancy by the family.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

.Appeal from an order of the district court of Morrison county sustaining an order of the probate court setting apart 80 acres, as the homestead of Charles A. Lindberg, deceased, to Evangeline Lindberg, his surviving widow. Mr. and Mrs. Lindberg were married in 1901. They immediately took up their abode upon the 80 in question and occupied the same as their homestead until 1923. In their early married life, one child was born to them, Charles A. Lindberg, Jr. The father died on May 24, 1924. His estate was admitted to probate, in the usual course, shortly after his demise. The 80 in question was set apart, as the homestead, to the surviving widow. An appeal was taken to the district court where the order of the probate court was affirmed, and the case comes to this court by appeal. The sole question upon this appeal is whether the order of the district court is justified by the proofs in the record. We answer the query in the affirmative.

Deceased was a member of Congress from 1907 to 1917 and he was much engaged in political work through the Middlewest up to the time of his death and was away from home much of the time. Mrs. Lindberg, in the meantime, looked after the home. When the son went away to school, she was alone much of the time. The finances ran low and she went out and taught school, but retained the home, leaving the household *493 goods and furniture in place. Shé testified, as did the son, that Mr. Lind-berg kept and used a room in the house for his political work and that they occupied the place as their home always. She testified that she and Mr. Lindberg lived together as husband and wife all the time; that she lived in the house a number of days in December, 1923, and that her husband was there with her. In this she was corroborated by the son.

The theory of appellant was that the homestead had been abandoned. We find no evidence in the record to support this theory. It nowhere appears that there was an intention on the part of any member of the family to abandon the home. Upon the contrary, it was kept in readiness for occupancy by the family.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 N.W. 929, 165 Minn. 492, 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-dickey-trust-co-v-lindberg-minn-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack