Cited by

ttorney, when you have this expensive property involved.” On November 9, 1961, the attorney general’s office wrote to Mr. Paul Rosso: “As you recall, I urged most strongly that you immediately retain competent counsel to assist you so that you might, assuming that the facts you allege are correct, avoid the consequences of further failure to use the accepted legal channels.” 4 Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183, 188 .

In the case cited and in Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 , which it follows, it appeared that the title to land was involved and the case was certified to the district court as directed by section 7536, G. S. 1913.

“The statute gives the exemption absolutely, and without making the right to it dependent upon any affirmative action upon the part of the person claiming it towards an officer levying or about to levy upon it.” Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 .

Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 .

Eastman v. Linn, 20 Minn. 387 (433) ; Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 ; Somerville v. Donaldson, 26 Minn. 75 , ; Schmitt v. Schmitt, 32 Minn. 130 , ; Knight v. Valentine, 35 Minn. 367 , ; City of St.

Eastman v. Linn, 20 Minn. 387 (433); Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 ; Schmitt v. Schmitt, 32 Minn. 130 , ; City of St.

Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299 ; Smith v. Lackor, 23 Minn. 454 ; Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 .

Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 , was an action under Gen.

The judgment dissolves the marriage between the parties, and adjudges that plaintiff is the absolute and sole owner of the real estate, describing it, and “that she is entitled to and have the immediate possession thereof.” In Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 , it was said that the phrase in section 11, chapter 75, “action for the recovery of real property,” refers to an action in the nature of the common-law ejectment; and in Somerville v. Donaldson, 26 Minn. 75 , that any action, whatever its

Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 , is cited in support of this proposition.

Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 ; Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn. 267 .

As decided by this court in Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 ; 27 Minn. 156 , the omission of defendants to select 80 acres for a homestead did not affect the homestead right.

Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 ; Goenen v. Schroeder, 8 Minn. 344 (387;) Merriam v. Baker, 9 Minn. 28 (40.)

Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299 ; Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 ; Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, § 231.

In the consideration of this case on a former appeal, ( 25 Minn. 183 ,) it was held that it was not necessary for an execution debtor, in order to preserve his homestead exemption, to give to an officer about to make a levy a description of the premises claimed by him as a homestead, together with a notice that he was claiming them as such.

In Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183 , this court said: “From a general view of the provisions of chapter 75, relat *77 ing to such actions, it is quite apparent tliat the phrase ‘action for the recovery of real property,’ as there used,,was intended to refer to an action in the nature of the common-law ejectment.” That case was a proceeding under the st