Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-11-13
LAW POINT
Supreme Court Passes on an Interest
ing Point With Reference to
the Exemption Law.
Rights of a Wife in the Claiming OF
Exemptions Decided in Case Of :,
Ness VS.. Jones.

The supreme court has handed down
a decision in the caSe of Mary Ness VS..
Jones from Richland county, and some
interesting questions regarding the ex-
emption laws are settled by the court.
The action was brought to recover the
possession of personal property seized
on an execution against the plaintiff
and her husband as joint debtors. The
plaintiff before instituting the suit
claimed the property as exempt. The
trial court directed a verdict for the
defendant, who was sheriff of the
county and had made the seizure. The
supreme court affirms the Judgment of
the lower court in the following sylla-
bus:
Section 5516, 1905 and 1925 of the
Revised Codes of 1895 and section POS
of the. state constitution relating to
exemptions considered and construed:
Held, that the husband and not the
wife is primarily the head of the fam
lily; and that as a result merely of con-
jugal relation a wife who is a debtor
does not occupy the relation of head
of the family for the purpose of claim
ing exemptions Of personal property
seizure and sale by legal process.
Held, further; that under certain
conditions when shown to exist from
necessity the wife may be compelled
to accept the burden of maintaining
the family and in such exceptional con-
ditions the law comedies to her the
family headship for the purpose of
claiming exemptions.
In the case at bar the family of the
plaintiff consisted of herself, the hus-
band and eight children. The family
resided upon land owned by the plain
tiff which was operated as a farm and
consisted of n quarter section of
land. In 1895 the husband engaged
in the machinery business in connec-
ton with certain farming operations
upon lands owned by him separately.
The husband failed in business, lost
all OF his property and became bank
rupt. During all the time in which
the husband was prosecuting said out
side business the wife carried on the
home farm and supplied the necessar-
les for the support of the family and
did this with only slight assistance
from her husband in the way of advice
and the performance of some little
work about the home. The property
in question consists of grain raised by
the wife on the home farm which the
plaintiff, the wife, claims as exempt
from seizure to satisfy a Judgment
against her and her husband. At all
together as such on the same premises
and the evidence shows that the hus-
band is not disabled mentally or phys
ically nor is there any suggestion in
the evidence that the husband is OF
ever was unwilling to labor for the sup,
port of the family. Held, under sucI
conditions, that the husband was the
head of the family within the meaning
of the exemption law as to persona
property and that the wife under thu
conditions shown by the evidence was
not the head of the family for sucf
purpose"
Another case decided was that Of tn.
National Bank of Wahpeton VS.. Martin
Hanberg. This was an action in fore
closure of a chattel mortgage. TIL.
trial court is reversed by the supreme
court.