#### Polzen, Respondent, vs. Polzen, Appellant.

*May 23*

October *3, 1916.*

*Wills: Devise of homestead: Exemption.*

1. Under sec. 2280, Stats., where a life estate in the homestead of a testator passes under his will to his widow, with remainder to his children, the remaindermen as well as the life tenant take it free and clear of all judgments and claims against the testator or his estate.

2. But the interest of a daughter, as one of such remaindermen, is liable for any judgment against her, it not being her homestead.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Waukesha county: David W. AgNEw, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Partition of homestead.

Plaintiff and defendant are two of the heirs of Joseph Pol-zen, who died testate January 30, 1911, and left surviving his wife, Hedwich Polzen, three sons, and two daughters hereinafter named. His will was duly admitted to probate and the part thereof material upon this appeal is as follows:

“Unto my beloved wife Hedwich Polzen, all of my estate, bhth real and personal, to have and to hold for her maintenance and support during the term of her natural life.”

“At the death of my said wife my estate, or the residue of my estate, shall be equally divided between my three sons and two daughters, namely, *John Polzen,*Maxmillian Polzen, Joseph Polzen, *Kathrina Polzen,*and Cecelia Klubertanz.”

The defendant filed a claim against the estate of her father for services and was awarded judgment for $2,394 thereon. One Gr. H. Vogel obtained a judgment against the defendant in the county court on September 2, 1914, for the sum of $55.83. The widow, Hedwich Polzen, died intestate on September 2, 1914. Thereafter this action was begun for partition of the premises, resulting in a sale and division of the proceeds under the statute. The defendant claimed that she had ajien on the property for the amount of her judgment and that the said Vogel was not entitled to be paid the *19amount of bis judgment out of ber part of tbe proceeds of tbe estate. At tbe trial it was stipulated that tbe father, Joseph Polzen, was at tbe time of bis death tbe owner of tbe property ; that tbe land consisted of, thirty and one-fifth acres and that be was living thereon up to tbe time that be died and that it was bis homestead at tbe time of bis death; that tbe widow took under tbe will a life estate only, and that after ber death it should be equally divided among tbe five heirs named. Tbe county court of Waukesha county denied tbe claims of tbe defendant and directed tbe payment of certain costs and tbe payment of one fifth of tbe amount remaining to each of' tbe five legatees named, except that out of tbe share of tbe defendant tbe said G. IT. Yogel was to be paid tbe amount of bis judgment, $58.49. Erom tbe judgment of tbe county ■court tbe defendant appeals.

Eor tbe appellant tbe cause was submitted on tbe brief of *Frame & Blade done,*attorneys, and *Frederick A.*Bangs, associate counsel.

*G. Holmes Daubner,*for tbe respondent.

Tbe following opinion was filed June 13, 1916:

EoseNbebby, J.

Tbe defendant claims that because tbe widow, Hedwich Polzen, took a life estate in tbe homestead, tbe real estate in the bands of tbe remaindermen is subject to tbe payment of ber judgment. Tbe basis of this claim is not clear. It seems to be based upon tbe idea that, because tbe life estate descended to Hedwich Polzen free and clear of all judgments and claims under tbe statute, tbe homestead statute became thereby exhausted and did not protect that part of tbe estate which passed to tbe remaindermen under tbe will. We will not consider this proposition further than to say that it is ruled adversely to tbe defendant by *Foote v. Foote,*159 Wis. 179, 149 N. W. 738.

Tbe defendant further claims that ber interest' in tbe homestead of ber father was not subject to tbe lien of tbe said Vogel. This claim seems to arise from a misunderstanding *20of the exemption statute. The property in her hands was exempt from any judgment rendered against her father or his-estate, but was liable for any-judgment against her, as it was not in any sense her homestead, she being at the time admittedly. a resident of Chicago.

We have considered the other assignments of error, but do not treat them at length. To do so would serve no useful purpose.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Eschweiler, J., took no part.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on. October 3, 1916.