*1 1030 Co., this falls

Delivery S. We think ease W. within that rule. a a support Plaintiff cites of eases to that number her contention Richards, Oakley case made. v. 204 S. W. was submissible was directly path there set aside to be a case where a off in the step Woodward, 179, is a case where Nephler used v. 200 Mo. patrons. caught rug principal hole in on aisle patron a foot in a her were by persons going or from their seats. Such defects used point. not in immediately in the travel. cases are A path of Those prop support proposition number of cases cited in that are erty keep reasonably must in a safe condition. premises owner his true, the facts in this application such cases have no That is but discussing liability ease. She also cites a line cases failure light a invitees. Some properly stairway or corridor used or by guests 947; Railway Exchange, (2d) 42 W. of such cases are: v. S. [Petera Parkview, Buckingham Realty Co., supra; 60 W. Stein v. Fencht S. v. case, reading (2d) opinions We will each not discuss but they do have will disclose not rule matters we under consideration knowledge pictures here. is common that a are shown It theatre where lighted nothing a well there is in this record dis place, cannot be being lights pictures were shown. closing an unusual lack of while the had been We should add that chairs in the theatre installed City. building in accordance with code of Kansas considering carefully reading After record authorities on, we trial did commit error in relied sustaining conclude not ground for new trial that a de- motion on

defendant’s believing, have been sustained. we murrer to the evidence should So order. affirm the All concur. George Administrator, re : Estate N. Clute, Clute,

In G. Deceased, V. Appellant. F. Clute, W Respondent, alter (2d) 161 S.W. 705. City Appeals. April 6, Kansas 1942. Court *2 B. E. Musser for appellant. *3 Armstrong

Frank for respondent. W.

1033' SPERRY, judgment ordering is an from a sale of appeal C.—This Clute,- deceased, acres of land of G. owned the estate V. 1/3 being being said real estate home- assets of said estate sole Clute, stead of deceased and of Viola widow. his Clute, deceased,

G. V. died testate November -seized Clute, possessed surviving, Viola question. He left land twenty-one years widow, past children, his and seven all whom were age. personalty inventoried sold property His sole consisted herein judgment $19.96, the sum of and the land described at the value appealed and -inventoried appraised from. The land is Clute, was son, Walter F. a will wherein his -$416. Deceased left remaining beneficiary, widow and his named as sole and deceased’s nothing the terms- of under children were mentioned but received deceased, George duly probated and son of said will. The will was duly qualified, as Clute, legally and thereafter appointed, N. ' administrator. alleging probate Thereafter, petition filéd her the widow made allowance be praying deceased’s widow and that she was time, court, in made year.' due for a support for her *4 to was entitled finding widow order that the entered of record its paid to ordered year’s granted and support, a and an for allowance $600. of the sum purpose, that her, of estate for out of the assets said settlement, which was partial a filed Thereafter, the administrator personal that the was shown duly by court, wherein it approved the pay- -entirely exhausted proceeds been sold and the property had court con- order of to the costs; called attention ing administrative widow; recited that to allowance the cerning $600 of the cash payment realized could be allowance cash from which said were no assets there the suggested that estate; and the real from the sale of excepting of said sale its order of motion, and enter make court, of own its said paying purpose of rights, for the estate, subject to homestead real ‘ - allowance. widow’s that the'fact up set intervening plea and an "Walter F. filed Clute during-his lifetime of deceased homestead was the real estate said widow, of the- was, homestead the became', then and and thereafter the beneficiary under was the sole alleged that He he Viola Clute. the of jurisdiction power and the denied and'he will -of deceased probate court to order said' purpose paying homestead sold for of the the cash allowance to the widow. The court sale, ordering made and entered an order of said real estate for sale, however, sold the above purpose, mentioned said subject be rights.

to made to homestead From this- Walter F. order ’ Clute, whom shall refer appellant, appealed we to as the to circuit where, court duly after had, trial real that court found that the estate a sold, here involved constituted homestead and ordered same subject rights, to purpose procuring homestead for the with of funds pay which to the allowance $600 widow’s of aforementioned. From this judgment-appellant appeals to this court.

It by is conceded appellant both administrator that the real estate a involved is homestead and entire $416. that its value is about question The power sole involved not is whether or the has the to homestead, subject order sale comprising of real to the estate rights, homestead purpose paying statutory of the allowance duly widow, made for maintenance when real estate involved greater is of value not than $1500. rights

The widow, children, of minor and creditors in homestead is determined law in at the of the death force time Politte, rights homesteader. v. 129 S. W. [Kay 864.] always homesteaders, rights, or of those entitled homestead have to - carefully guarded by courts, been rights our homesteaders liberally Gorman, 1, been 289 Mo. have construed. [Dennis v. However, always rights depended upon such the conditions have wording of statutes in time to time. cases hereinafter force from [See rights Prior 1862 there -existed in this State homestead to no cited.] or Gorman, (Dennis for the of widow and v. estate benefit children supra, 9) ; property l. c. 1875 and 1895 homestead between sold,’ ordinary subject rights, pay could debts of be to homestead Libby Wyatt, l, 9; Boward, estate. v. 160 Mo. v. [Keene 148, 154; Boulware, 33, Mo. 190 Mo. After the Robbins v. 301), 1907, p. amendment wherein Section (Laws of 1907 was Missouri, 1899, and a new section repealed Revised Statutes sold, subject thereof, property enacted lieu homestead could be rights widow, heirs the husband pay debts where the Gorman, 289 Mo. persons were other than his children. [Dennis 1, 12.] our Missouri, 1939, the section of

Section Bevised Statutes governs provides, part as follows: statute which this case in the “Provided, personal if there be not sufficient assets *5 may ad- court order purposes, then the the estate available for such mortgage for term not estate, to or executor of said ministrator the - cash, the real -estate of much exceeding year, for so of or sell the. one allowances, be sale to necessary pay such may to said deceased as be mortgaged or estate, rights in the real subject any homestead made to

1035 any sold, subject existing thereof, to liens the sale made so to be conducted in the manner proceedings same and under same the as provided by law for of real person pay sale estate of a deceased to debts of 1929, the estate. pars. S. 106 and 107; Reenacted Laws [R. ” 1933, p. 164.] section, reads,

This as it now upon repeal first came into the law 106, Missouri, 1919, Section Revised Statutes the enactment section, of a new 106, Missouri, 1921, numbered in lieu thereof. [Laws page only change The touching in this matter the statutes repeal 106, since was the 105 and Statutes Sections Revised Missouri, 1929, and new section, the enactment of a known as to be language Section which eliminated some the former contained in sections, and combined the two aforesaid sections into one. Laws [See Missouri, 1933, page This last mentioned in Re appears section Missouri, 1939, vised Statutes 106. as Section

We directly holding are cited to decision fee no of the land, subject homestead rights, may to the to pay homestead be sold year’s a widow’s for a support. However, Supreme allowance Court, in McGauhey’s Estate, Nettleton Bank v. S. W.

l. (section 106) c. observed: “The statute mentioned since its in 1921 has reenactment sanctioned of land for the sale payment year’s support of the . . .” allowance This Was said in sold, subject where a case the lower had ordered homestead rights, payment homestead allowance to widow for a $900 year’s support. . always directly Since the sale of homestead land been controlled has by the statutes in force at time of the death of the husband or father, Politte, we hold law. The [Kay this be the still supra.] a home this authorizes the sale remainder of statute case any rights estate, tract, “subject real mort stead homestead sold, meaning or is clear gaged . . .” We think the of the statute by unambiguous case, this and that sale in as ordered by statute, court, Such a authorized is authorized. sale is case, convey simple will of the circuit court this the fee order estate, however, rights subject, to the homestead real to said title widow, Viola Clute. the' Boyer, C., judgment affirmed. concurs.

The is C., adopted foregoing is opinion PER CURIAM:—The Sperry, All concur. opinion judgment is affirmed. of the court. as the