— The plaintiff sued defendant in ejectment for the east half of the north half оf the southeast quarter of section ten, township twenty-two, of range twenty-six, in Bаrry county. William .Vesper died intestate on the 25th day of March, 1875, seized of thе land in controversy and residing thereon with his family. His widow and the defendant, his son, werе his sole heirs, the latter at his father’s death being twenty years of age. Debts were allowed against the estate amounting, in the aggregate, to about the sum of $500. There was hut little personal property, not exceeding in amount what the law allowed the widow, to whom the administrator delivered it. The land in controversy was set off to the widow as a homestead, and afterwards, on the petition of the administrator, the court ordered the sale оf said land, subject to the homestead, for the payment of debts, and the plaintiff became the purchaser and paid the purchase monеy, which was applied to the payment of the debts of the deceаsed. The proceedings were all regular, and the only question for detеrmination is whether the sale by the administrator passed the .title to the purсhaser.
Respondent contends that, under the act of March 18th, 1875, it could not he sold while the widow was liv-. ing or the defendant was a minor, and the court below gave an instruction to that effect, and the verdict and judgment were for dеfendant, from which plaintiff’ has appealed. The act of 1875 is as follоws: “If any such ousekeeper or head of a family shall die leaving a widоw
the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed.