Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-10-21

supreme Court
Will of Harriet E. Wightman, Joshua Hol-
brook, device, appellant, VS.. Samuel
Wlghtman, respondent:
Syllabus: The matter in controversy ia
a farm of eighty acres, homestead proper
ty of the late Harriet E. Wightman, and
willed by deceased to her father, Joshua
Holbrook, who appeals from the Judgment
of the district court adjudging respondent
Samuel Wightman, surviving husband of
deceased, entitled to an estate for life
thereon, Held: That estate or interest
of surviving husband in an exempt home
stead is not subject to be diverted by will
of deceased owner. Held, also, that the
interest acquired by surviving husband in
such homestead is an estate for life, with
no limitation upon the manner of its en-
joyment. But homestead premises are
transmitted to the survivor by opera
ton of law, and may, therefore, continue
to be occupied as homestead or not, as
the interest and convenience of such sur
vivor may require. Therefore respondent
was entitled to life estate in the home
stead of deceased. VANDERBURG, j.
Robert Little, respondent, VS.. Anthony
Milford appellant.
Syllabus: Plaintiff issued deed of
lot for church building to the trustees
of the M. E. church of Elgin. The deed
on its face purported to convey the land
to certain parties of the second part as
trustees of the said M. E. church sin trust
that said premises shall be used, maintain
ed and disposed of as place of divine
worship for use of the ministers and mem
beers of the NJ. E. church in the United
States," etc. They took possession and
built church in good
faith with the knowledge
and approval of plaintiff, and have ever
knowledge until this action was brought
premises, including the building, and
seeks to restrain the defendants from re-
moving the church from the lot. Held
that no title passed by the deed; did not
vest in trustees as grantees absolutely, be-
cause it is apparent that the grant was at
tempted to be made in trust; did not vest
by force of statute of uses in benefciaries
or cestui que trust, for none are disclosed
by the deed, and the religious association
as a corporation or otherwise was not
named. The trust declared and sought to
be created is general and indefinite in it's
character, and may be denominated "a
charitable use." Snch trusts are not
among those recognized by statutes OF the
state, but all are abolished. Held, as re-
spect rights to remove fixtures and build
ings erected by one person on the
land of another: The rule that whatever ia
annexed to the soil becomes part of the in
heritance is subject to several exceptions,
growing out of the interests of trade and
the equitable rights and relations of
parties. And a distinction ia recog-
nized between the cases of an unauthorized
erection Of structure and improvements
made with the consent of the land owner.
Held also that the building in controversy
must be adjudged to have been erected
under the license and by the authority of
the plaintiff, and that as against the de
PENDANTS or the association represented by
them, the plaintiff has no equities to claim,
and appropriates as his own the building
in controversy, erected in the faith of such
license, and it not being questioned that
defendants are acting under proper eu
thority, a court of equity ought not to inter
fere to restrain them from severing the
building to remove it to another site to be
nsed under same UNCONVENTIONAL control.
VANDERBURGH, J.