Vought v. Kanne , 10 F.2d 747 ( 1926 )

AMIDON, District Judge

(concurring). I concur in the affirmance of this ease solely on the authority of In re Sullivan, 148 F. 815, 78 C. C. A. 505. If the question were new, I should be in favor of reversal on the grounds stated in Olmsted-Stevenson Co. v. Miller, 231 F. 69, 145 C. C. A. 257, and in Judge KENYON’S dissent. In my judgment these opinions contain a sound interpretation of the agricultural homestead statute. They do no more than give to the head of a family the “use” of the homestead for the family’s support. The passage quoted from the Sullivan Case in Judge STONE’S opinion seems to me clearly unsound. It attempts to deduce the rule from the exception. The exemption of 80 acres is intended for ordinary farming conditions. It is a matter of common knowledge that a farmer, with the severest industry of. himself and family, cannot do more than produce a plain living on 80 acres of land. When the state as a whole is looked at, the 80-acre truck farmer is so exceptional as to he negligible.

I concur, because I think the Sullivan Case should not be reversed by a divided court.