Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/440

 returned home, remaining there until January, 1903, when he was again committed to the said hospital, where he has ever since remained. It is claimed that his insanity is incurable.

Defendant was the owner of considerable personal property worth between $2,000 and $3,000, and $2,000 in cash at the time of the trial. The homestead of about 160 acres at this time was worth about $16,0oo, and the 160 acres which was purchased on contract was worth about $12,000. Plaintiff at this time also appeated to have between $2,000 and $3.00o in cash and Liberty Bonds in her name.

The trial court granted the plaintiff a divorce and decreed to her all of defendant's property with the exception of the 16o acres which had been purchased on contract and which had been fully paid for by the defendant. In short, the trial court awarded her approximately $20,000 and left in the name of the defendant the land above mentioned of the value of about $12,000.

The only error assigned on this appeal is the refusal of the trial court to transfer the whole of the property to plaintiff instead of leaving in his name the northwest quarter of section 14, township 132, range 55. In this we are clear there is no error. The same rule we think would be applicable here as on division of property in a divorce proceeding based upon other statutory grounds for divorce than that of insanity. The trial court made what it thought was a fair division of the property in all of the circumstances of the case.

It would seem that it has exercised a wise discretion in the matter a one which should not be disturbed unless for more forceful reasons than have been presented to us. It is claimed, however, by the plaintiff, that all of her children signed a request that all of the property be transferred to their mother, the plaintiff. But notwithstanding this, the trial court thought it wise and just that a certain portion of the property should remain in the defendant's name, and we are unable to discover any good reason why its decree in this respect is not equitable and just. Certainly the amount left defendant will not be squandered, as it appears he will in all probability spend the remainder of his days in the hospital for the insane. There will also continue to be a guardian over his estate whether it be his wife, who has now procured a divorce, or some other competent person.

There is another very good reason why a portion of the property should be left in the name of the defendant. His estate, in the conditions