Slade v. Slade

Estates or Deceased Persons—Setting Apart Exempt Property to Widow—Implements oe Husbandry.—The farming utensils and implements of husbandry used by the decedent in the operation of a farm of three hundred acres, may be set apart to the widow as property exempt from execution, although, by the will of the decedent, only the dwelling-house and about forty acres of orchard and vineyard lands were devised to her, and the residue of the estate was devised to the children and grandchildren.

Id.—Classes oe Husbandry not Regarded.—The law does not recognize classes of husbandry, nor limit its exemption of farming utensils and implements of husbandry to one particular class of several that may be followed by the farmer, and will not inquire whether they were used in agriculture, horticulture, or viticulture.

Id.—Jurisdiction op Superior Court.—Upon a petition of the widow for an order setting apart to her the exempt property of the decedent, the superior court had jurisdiction to grant the prayer of the petition under section 1465 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is immaterial whether it granted the relief under a sense of compulsion, or in the exercise of a sound discretion, where nothing appears in the record to indicate an abuse of discretion.

Id.—Presumption as to Future Allowance.—If the widow should petition for an allowance under section 1466 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after an order setting apart to her the exempt property, it must be presumed that the court will act with due regard to its previous order, and to the subsequent condition or the estate.

Id.—Value of Exempt Implements—Amendment of Code—Immaterial Question.—If the inventory shows that exempt implements of husbandry set apart to the widow were of less value than one thousand dollars, it is not material to decide whether the amendment of March 27, 1897, to section 690 of the Code of Civil Procedure limiting the exemption to implements of the value of one thousand dollars, which took effect after the death of the decedent, but prior to the order setting them apart, controls the exemption or not.

Id.—Correctness of Inventory—Cost of Replacing Implements Used. The correctness of the inventory, and its effect as evidence of the value of the exempt implements, is not disputed by evidence that they could not be replaced for a sum greatly exceeding the appraised value, and greatly exceeding one thousand dollars. The cost oi replacing exempt implements used by the decedent with new implements is no measure of the value of the implements used.

Id.—Findings—Exemption—Omission of Value.—Findings that the property set apart to the widow was exempt from execution at the death of the decedent, and still is so exempt, involves a finding that the property did not exceed the statutory limit of value if applicable thereto, and it is not prejudicial error to omit to find as to its value.