Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Donaldson v. Lamprey, 11 N.W. 119.

25 citing documents.

First Minnesota Bank as assignee of Sacor Financial, Inc., as assignee of National Credit Acceptance, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In Re the Estate of Riggle 654 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Estate of Riggle 654 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 765 ; cf. Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , 11 N.W.
O'BRIEN v. Johnson 148 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1967
O'BRIEN v. Johnson 148 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1967
510.07, “[t]he owner may sell and convey the homestead without subjecting it, or the proceeds of such sale for the period of one year after sale, to any judgment or debt from which it was exempt in his hands.” In Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18, 22 , , we *311 held that to permit a plurality of exemptions was “a fraud upon the spirit of the statute.” Undoubtedly § 510.07 was intended to conserve the proceeds realized from the sale of a homestead in order to make them available for the purchase
First National Bank of Mankato v. Wilson 47 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1951
First National Bank of Mankato v. Wilson 47 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1951
leaves *166 the premises vacant, would be a misnomer — a use of language never contemplated by the legislature.” By L. 1860, c. 95, appearing as § 8 of G. S. 1878, c. 68, the homestead statute was amended to permit the owner of a homestead to “remove therefrom, or sell, and convey the same, * * * [without rendering the homestead liable to forced sale on execution, etc.].” In Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , , this court was urged to interpret that amendment as permitting the maintenance of ho
Cysewski v. Steingraber 24 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1946
Cysewski v. Steingraber 24 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1946
See, Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , ; Williams v. Moody, 35 Minn. 280 , ; Clark v. Dewey, 71 Minn. 108 , .
Gordon v. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. 210 N.W. 87 Minn. 1926
Gordon v. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. 210 N.W. 87 Minn. 1926
In Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , , it was held that, by removing from his homestead and acquiring a new homestead elsewhere, the owner’s right of exemption to the first is lost.
Kramer v. Lamb 87 N.W. 1024 Minn. 1901
Kramer v. Lamb 87 N.W. 1024 Minn. 1901
Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , .
Clark v. Dewey 73 N.W. 639 Minn. 1898
Clark v. Dewey 73 N.W. 639 Minn. 1898
As was said in Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18, 21 , : “What he may remove from is his homestead; what is to remain notwithstanding his removal is his homestead; and what is exempt is always, in the words of the statute, his ‘homestead/ which means his legal home and dwelling place, although temporarily personally absent.” Upon an examination of the e
Quehl v. Peterson 49 N.W. 390 Minn. 1891
Quehl v. Peterson 49 N.W. 390 Minn. 1891
This court, in Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Stewart v. Rhoades 39 N.W. 141 Minn. 1888
Stewart v. Rhoades 39 N.W. 141 Minn. 1888
From the care that has been taken to provide for, secure, and protect this important right and privilege, it is obvious that no one can be deprived of it without clear and convincing testimony of abandonment, — such, for illustration, as was presented in Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Russell v. Speedy 37 N.W. 340 Minn. 1888
Russell v. Speedy 37 N.W. 340 Minn. 1888
In Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Williams v. Moody 28 N.W. 510 Minn. 1886
Williams v. Moody 28 N.W. 510 Minn. 1886
Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.
Robertson v. Sullivan 17 N.W. 336 Minn. 1883
Robertson v. Sullivan 17 N.W. 336 Minn. 1883
Donaldson v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 18 , is readily distinguished from the case at bar by its facts.