family. Section 5518, R. C. 1895. Formerly, the same allowance in amount was made concerning exempt. property of a deceased person as § 8725, C. L. 1913, now provides. Section 6391, R. C. 1895. If the construction should obtain that the surviving wife should be entitled to receive $1,500 under § 8725 and, in addition, the amount of additional exemptions allowed the head of a family, then, under former statutes, the surviving wife would have been entitled to a total of $3,000 besides her absolute exemptions. We do not believe that § 8725 contemplates the entire incorporation of the exemptions allowed the head of a family, while alive, and, in addition, the allowance of $1,500. It is apparent that § 7730, referring to the absolute exemptions to the head of a family, while alive, should not wholly be incorporated in the provisions of § 8725. Among the absolute exemptions provided in § 7730 is the homestead as created, defined, and limited by law. This is not contemplated within the provisions of § 8725 for the reason that § 8723 specifically provides for the exemption of a homestead of a deceased person. It would accordingly seem to have been the legislative intent, when these different statutes were enacted, to accord to the head of a family $1,500 as exempt property, and likewise, the same amount to the surviving widow out of the property of a deceased person, all in addition to absolutely exempt property. This court has heretofore held that the surviving widow is entitled to receive the property of the deceased absolutely exempt, in addition to other property of the value of $1,500. Fore v. Fore, 2 N. D. 260, 50 N. W. 712; Woods v. Teeson, 31 N. D. 610, 154 N. W. 797. We are of the opinion that § 8725 is not a cumulative statute and does not award to the surviving widow $1,500 in addition to what the husband would have been entitled if he were living. In other words, the exemption allowed the surviving widow, pursuant to § 8725, is $1,500, plus property absolutely exempt. See Woods v. Teeson, 31 N. D. 610, 154 N. W. 797; Krumenacker v. Andis, 38 N. D. 500, 516, 165 N. W. 524.
We are further of the opinion that the cause of action should be sustained against the demurrer that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action and that several causes of action have been improperly united. Upon these phases of the demurrer, the defendants have made no contentions before this court.
The order is reversed, with costs.
