Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 N.H. 51

Austin v. Stanley

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 15, 1865

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1865-06-15

Writ oe entry. Submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. The demanded premises are in Weare, in this county, and consist of a house and lot of land of the value of five hundred dollars.

Relies on Davis v. Andrews · Moss v. Warner · Benedict v. Bunnell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2019

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

401865187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Doe, J.

¶1The Homestead Act, ch. 1089, Laws 1851, provides that the family homestead of the head of each family shall be exempt. "Homestead” means home place, or place of the home, and the question whether the premises were exempt from the levy of the defendant’s execution, is to be determined by the rules applicable to residence or domicile — rules of familiar and frequent application in questions of right to vote and liability to be taxed. The statute was specially intended to secure to debtors and their families, the shelter of the homestead roof; not to exempt mere investments in real estate, or the rents and profits derived therefrom.

¶2. Temporary absence from the premises, with intent to retain the home there and to return to it, would not be an .abandonment of the home or a relinquishment of the homestead right. Davis v. Andrews, 30 Vt. 678; Taylor v. Boulware, 17 Texas 74; Benedict v. Bunnell, 7 Cal. 245; Moss v. Warner, 10 Cal. 296. It would- probably be a reasonable conclusion from the agreed facts, that the premises were not exempt; but the plaintiff’s intention is not stated, and it would seem that it ought to appear in this case. During the temporary absence, his possession might be retained by agents or servants; but if he transferred his occupation and right of possession to a tenant, the exemption might cease.

¶3Dase discharged.

/46/nh/51 · .json · Public domain