Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 Vt. 71

Hyser v. Mansfield

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided December 4, 1899

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1899-12-04

Bill in chancery to enjoin the defendants from selling on execution real estate of the orator claimed by him as a homestead. Heard on pleadings and the report of a special master, Orange County, December Term, 1898, Tyler, Chancellor. Decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The defendants appealed.

Relies on West River Bank v. Gale · Rice v. Rudd · Woodbury v. Warren

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1899-12-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2004

1 district · 3 state decisions

20189919001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

Munson, J.

¶1The orator, an unmarried man without children, living with his mother in hired rooms and contributing to the expense, bought a piece of land upon which there was an old shop, and from time to time, as his other work permitted, made the changes necessary to convert the shop into a dwelling. Before these repairs were completed the defendants attached the property ; and after this attachment the orator and his mother moved into the building, where they have since kept house. The master finds that the orator bought and improved and kept the property with the intention of making a dwelling for himself and his mother; and that at and ever after the time of the attachment he was the housekeeper or head of the family, if an unmarried man without children can be such in law.

¶2The orator could acquire a homestead, for an unmarried man without children can be the head of a family and a housekeeper. Pierce v. Cusic, 56 Vt. 418. The orator’s intention and prepara*73tions regarding the property which the defendants propose to' sell were sufficient to make it a homestead. West River Bank v. Gale, 42 Vt. 27; Rice v. Rudd, 57 Vt. 6; Woodbury v. Warren, 67 Vt. 251. The orator is entitled to have the threatened sale enjoined. A completed levy would be a cloud upon his title ; for the invalidity of the levy would not appear from an inspection of the record, and could be established only by proof of extrinsic facts. 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. sec. 1399 ; 6 A. & E, Ency. Law, 2d. Ed. 149. He has no remedy at law, for his possession of the property precludes the bringing of ejectment. 6 A. & E. Ency. Law, 2d. Ed. 159. He has not proceeded prematurely, for equity will prevent as well as remove a cloud. 6 A. & E. Ency. Law, 2d. Ed. 159; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. sec. 1398, note.

¶3Decree affirmed and cause remanded.

/72/vt/71 · .json · Public domain