Cited by

In Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , , we find the court using almost the same language with respect to personalty as Mr. Justice Mitchell used with respect to the homestead in Wilson v. Proctor, 28 Minn. 13 , , supra.

In Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325, 327 , , opinion by Justice Holt, in discussing the statute, the court said: “The part the widow is entitled to is not to be included in the estate to be administered upon, and is not subject to the expenses of administration or the payment of proved claims, and is no part of the residue to be distr

Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325, 328 , .

Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , 328 , 138 N.W.

See Benjamin v. Laroche, 39 Minn. 334 , ; Sammons v. Higbie’s Estate, 103 Minn. 448 , ; Strom-berg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , ; Barrett v. Heim, 152 Minn. 147 , ; In re Estate of Fults, 177 Minn. 334, 336 , .

Co. 118 Minn. 444 , ; Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , ; Barrett v. Heim, 152 Minn. 147 , .

Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , ; Barrett v. Heim, 152 Minn. 147 , ; G. S. 1923 ( 2 Mason, 1927 ) §§ 8726, 8796, 8797.

*150 In Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , , tbe court referring to section 7308 said [p. 327]: “Tbe part tbe widow is entitled to is not to be included in tbe estate to be administered upon, and is not subject to tbe expenses of administration or tbe payment of proved claims, and is no part of tbe residue to be distributed.” See also Nordlund

Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , ; Sammons v. Higbie’s Estate, 103 Minn. 448 , .

Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , 138 N W. 428.

See Sammons v. Higbie’s Estate, 103 Minn. 448 , , and Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325 , .

In Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 *199 Minn. 325 , , the true rule was applied to the very section now under consideration, the question there involved being whether the widow of a nonresident could claim the personal property allowance made by our statute to a surviving spouse.