The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-08
GOOD FOR THE CREDITORS.
Decision That Fattens the Bank of
Minnesota Assets.

It develops that the decision Of the
supreme court in the case of Alice K.
Merrill against the Security Trust COM
pany, reported in the G l O yester-
day, has an important bearing on the
proposed reorganization Of the Bank of
Minnesota. The decision is to the et-
feet that an assignment destroys
wife's interest in her husbands real
property, and that an assignee can
give good title to such real property,
If sold for the benefit Of creditors. Ed
S. Durment says:
1.-THE claim has been that the wires
statutory right in the husbands real
property was not affected in any way
by an assignment under our insolvent
law For that reason, of course,
large amount of real property turned
over to assignees for the benefit of
creditors has been sacrificed hereto
fore without the creditors getting any
real benefit from It,
"One of the grounds, I understand,
on which the parties seeking to reor-
ganiZe the Minnesota bank have urged
upon the creditors of the bank and Of
the DaWsonS to consent to the reOr
ganization, has been that the rights
of the wives of the Dawsons to one
third Of the real property of the DaW-
sons, after their death. would prevent
the assignee Of the Dawsons and the
any substantial benefit from DaWson's
real property. Also that while the
wives were not willing to turn the
property over to creditors in case the
bank was not reorganized, they would
consent to do so under reorgan1Za-
ton. This decision settles 1t that the
wives Of the Dawsons have no inter
est in the real property of their hus-
bands, so far as is necessary to take
n husbands
debts It is immaterial, therefore,
whether they release their interest in
their property or not, so far as the
REORGANIZATION of the bank is concern
ed. and the payment of creditors"
The opinion of the supreme court
says:
D. D. Merrill, being insolvent, in 1893 ex-
ecuted to the defendant, under the insolvent
law of 1881, an assignment OF all MS non
exempt property for the benefit OF his credl-
tors. Included in the property was a large
amount of real estate which the defendant
still holds for the purposes of the trust. Mrs.
Merrill did not Join with her husband in
the execution of the assignment: Merrill ed
in 1896 and his widow brings this action for
a partition of the real estate claiming that
under the statute she is now the absolute
owner Of one undivided third OF 1t free from
the payment OF any part OF the oepts vi ner
deceased husband.
The only question presented by this appeal
is whether this claim, on part of the widow,
is correct.
Owing to their early professional education,
lawyers may be liable to enter upon the
consideration of this question with certain
preconceived impressions derived, from the
doctrines relating to common law DOVER
(Which was not subject to the payment OF the
husbands debts and to fail to give, due
weight to the fact that with the widows
statutory one-third in the real estate OF her
husband is subject, in Its Just proportion proportion
with the other real estate, to the payment
of such debts of the deceased as are not
paid from the personal estate" , 49,
Some things which this court has said will
show that our minds have not always been
entirely free from these preconcefyed i'm
pressions. In view of the plain PROVISIONS
of the statute there can be no questlon tna1
when the husbands estate is administered
in the probate court the widows third in
his real estate Is subject to the payment OF
its just proportion Of his debts sales OF
for the payment OF debts are not suplect 10
the widows right, but convey a complete
title All that the widow gets in suen case iase
after the debts are paid. Every reason for
this applies with equal or greater force where
ministered by the district court in bank
ruptcy In the latter case, although not
physically dead, he Is financially SO. If after
his discharge he acquires property 1t Is by
cial birth as Of the date of his discharge.
In bankruptcy, as In probate, MS entire
of administration and distribution; and in
the one case, as in the other, all his credi-
tors are, may become, parties to the pro-
ceedings. The insolvent law contains no pro-
vision that the assignment by the husband
shall be subject to the wifes inchoate right
in his real estate; and in our opinion the p-o
visions of statute requiring the wife's assent
in writing to- conveyances by the husband in
order to bar her inchoate interest in the
property conveyed have application to a
general assignment under the insolvent law
for the benefit Of creditors. 1t would re-
suit in an anomalous state of things If the
wife is held to have greater rights when her
husbands estate Is administered in bank
ruptcy than when it Is administered in pro-
bate. If plaintiffs contention is correct she
is entitled to an absolute one-thrd of her
husbands estate regardless of tbs amount