Petition, for the set-off of a homestead. Facts found by the court. Held: bonds for the conveyance to them of other adjacent lands on the payment of $375, upon which they have paid $100. They have occupied these lands, depasturing them and talcing wood therefrom since they have held the bonds. March 3, 1894, the defendant caused the Eaton farm to be attached on her writ against the plaintiffs.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1895-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2006
3 state decisions
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.
¶1
“ Every person is entitled to five hundred dollars worth of his homestead, or of his interest therein, as a homestead right.” P. S.,
c.
138,
s.
1. A right to receive a conveyance by virtue of a contract is an interest in land upon which creditors may levy, and which.may be subject to a homestead right. P. S.,
c.
220,
s.
8. The defendant’s payment to Eaton of the amount due on the bond (P. S.,
c.
220,
s.
8) is immaterial. It could not deprive the plaintiffs of, or affect their right to, a homestead. To entitle one to a homestead right it is not essential that he actually dwell on the land in which it is claimed. Upon the evidence, it was competent for the court to find that the Eaton farm was actually and conveniently used by the plaintiffs in connection with the house where they lived, and was necessary ,to the convenient enjoyment of the house by them as a home.
Buxton
v.
Dearborn,
46 N. H. 43, 44, 45;
Cole
v.
Bank,
59 N. H. 53, 321;
Nichols
v.
Nichols,
62 N. H. 621;
Rogers
v.
Bank,
63 N. H. 428.
