Cited by

We noted in Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 143 , that the practice of continuing undivided interests has the tendency to continue “strife and litigation between the divorced parties.” To the same effect, see Maust v. Maust, 222 Minn. 135 , Johnson v. Johnson, 284 Minn. 181

Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , ; Dankers v. Dankers, 285 Minn. 120 , 172 N. W. (2d) 318 .

The diagnosis as of June 23,1967, was “paranoid schizophrenia.” In Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , , we said: “Insanity is a defense to an action for a. divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, if at the time the alleged acts of cruelty were committed the defendant was laboring under *122 such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of his acts or that they were wrong.” In Kunz v.

we observed in Maust v. Maust, 222 Minn. 135, 138 , 23 N. W. (2d) 537 , 539: “* * * The bitterness and animosity existing between the parties to this action, as clearly demonstrated by the record, indicates with certainty that any decree which would make plaintiff and defendant joint owners of the property here involved would lead to further strife and litigation.” See, Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , .

Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , .

es that have followed the rule of the Mahoney case, see Bensel v. Hall, 177 Minn. 178 , , in which case the court held that a division of property is essentially a different thing from the awarding of alimony in a divorce proceeding; Limnell v. Limnell, 176 Minn. 393 , ; Roberts v. Roberts, 135 Minn. 397 , , L. R. A. 1917C, 1140; Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , ; Maki v. Maki, 106 Minn. 357 , ; Annotation, 54 A. L. R. (2d) 1430.

Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117 , 28 N. W. (2d) 164 ; Maust v. Maust, 222 Minn. 135 , 23 N. W. (2d) 537 ; Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , .

In Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 143 , , Mr. Chief Justice Start said: “* * * The court, however, should award to the wife an undivided part of the husband’s property with caution, for the tendency of such an award is to excite strife and litigation between the divorced parties.” *139 The contention of plaintiff that the provision

Defendant cites and relies upon Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 144 , , where we held that the right to a lien is statutory (Mason St.

Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 143 , .

In Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , , the decree, among other things, awarded the wife $30 per month for the support of a minor child and made it a lien on certain personal property of the husband and on his interest in certain real estate.

The only decision of this court cited by counsel on the controlling issue is that of Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , .

It does not authorize making it a lien upon personál property; and in Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139 , , it was held that the right to a lien was statutory, and that in that case it was imposed improperly upon personal property.