258 N.W. 573 | Minn. | 1935
Lead Opinion
Title to a lot which is part of plaintiff's homestead is the subject of the action. It was the homestead of one Seaman for many years before September 7, 1923. On that day was entered and docketed against Seaman the judgment, now owned by plaintiff and under which he claims a lien on and the right to sell the property. The judgment debt was neither for the purchase price of the homestead nor for labor or materials chargeable against it. Plaintiff acquired the title from Seaman after entry of plaintiff's judgment and in November, 1929. The property had ceased to be Seaman's homestead in May, 1928.
October 13, 1923, much less than four months after the entry and docketing of plaintiff's judgment, Seaman filed a voluntary *253
petition in bankruptcy and was discharged in due course. He scheduled plaintiff's judgment among his liabilities. Plaintiff claims, notwithstanding, that while, as Seaman's homestead, the property was not subject to levy and sale under writ of execution, it was notwithstanding subject to the lien of the judgment, under 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, §§ 8336 and 9400. See Folsom v. Carli,
The question of statutory construction so presented, while important, is not for decision now because there is, in any view, a fatal obstacle to plaintiff's claim. It is that the judgment under which he claims, having been procured within four months of the institution of the bankruptcy proceeding, was annulled thereby for all purposes under § 67f of the bankruptcy act,
Therefore, assuming that plaintiff's judgment might have been temporarily a lien upon the Seaman homestead, it was annulled by the institution of the bankruptcy proceeding within the four-month *254 period, followed in due course by the judgment debtor's discharge.
The judgment is affirmed.
Court — United States Supreme Court — construction of federal bankruptcy act — effect.
Addendum
Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied. But its dignified and searching character deserves the following comment.
The claim that by the decision in this case we are in effect over-ruling Swaney v. Hasara,
It is true that Swaney v. Hasara,