Cited by

456 (1894); In re How (How II), 61 Minn. 217 , First National Bank of Shakopee v. How (How III), 65 Minn. 187 , 67 N.W.

Co., 61 Minn. 224 , 63 N.W.

fe to any amount that he chooses for the benefit of his wife and children, or that he may assign to his wife policies already issued to him.” In considering the constitutionality of §§ 61.14 and 61.15, we have not overlooked that this court, upon another ground, namely, by way of analogy to a trust, and without particular consideration of the cash-surrender value, has in In re How, 61 Minn. 217 , (reversing upon reargument our previous holding on that issue in 59 Minn. 415 , ), held an earlier a

Dictum in the early case of In re How, 61 Minn. 217, 218 , , where we said: "It is well settled that by the intervention of a trustee the donee of * * * a gift may be given the benefit thereof, exempt from seizure to satisfy her debts," indicated that such provisions would be upheld.

Dictum in the early case of In re How, 61 Minn. 217, 218 , , where we said: “It is well settled that by the intervention of a trustee the donee of * * * a gift may be given the benefit thereof, exempt from seizure to satisfy her debts,” indicated that such provisions would be upheld.

Co. 61 *608 Minn. 224, .

Co. 61 Minn. 224 , ; Skoglund v. Minneapolis St.

Co. 61 Minn. 224 , , it was said that the plaintiff, a married woman, “was not entitled to recover the expenses incurred for medical treatment, as these were expenses for which her husband was liable, and for which she was not liable.” But there is nothing in that case nor in any other decision of this court holding that

373 ; In re How, 61 Minn. 217 , ; First Nat.

Co. 61 Minn. 224 , , and other cases cited by the appellant are not in point, for the reason that the law placed the duty to furnish medical attendance and nursing upon another than the plaintiff in the case, at the suit of whom the defendant would be liable.

In re How, 59 Minn. 415 , 61 Minn. 217 , , .