Homestall

The mansion house.

The mansion-house. H 0 M E8T E A D. The home place — the place where the home is. It is the home — the house and the adjoining land — where the head of the family dwells — the home farm. Hoitt V. Webb, 36 N. H. 166. The place of a home or house; that part of a man’s landed property which is about and contiguous to his dwelling-house; the land, or town, or city lot, upon which the family residence is situated. Mc Kenzie v. Murphy, 24 Ark. 168; Mc Crosky v. Walker, 56 Ark. 303, 18 S. W. 169; Linn County Bank v. Hopkins, 47 Kan. 580, 28 Pac. 606, 27 Am. St. Rep. 309. The term necessarily includes the idea of place of residence — the place where he lives; Philleo V. Smalley, 23 Tex. 602. The homestead laws of various states are constitutional or statutory provisions for the exemption of a certain amount or value of real estate occupied by a debtor as his homestead from a forced sale for the payment of his debts. In some cases restraints are placed upon the alienation by the owner of his property, and in some cases the exempt property, upon the death of the owner, descends to the widow and minor children, free from liability for his debts. They are of a comparatively recent origin; Barney v. Ijeeds, 61 N. H. 261; but are now said to exist in all but seven states; Thomp. Horn. & Ex. Their policy has been eulogized in many decided cases. See Cook v. Mc Christian, 4 Cal. 26; Charless v. Lamberson, 1 la. 439, 63 Am. Dec. 457;. Franklin v. Coffee, 18 Tex. 415, 70 Am. Dec. 292; Thomp. Horn. & Ex. § 1. Homestead acts have generally received a liberal construction; Campbell v. Adair, 45 Miss. 182; Mills v. Grant’s Estate, 36 Vt. 271; Buxton v. Dearborn, 46 N. H. 43; contra, Fusclier v. Buckner, 28 La. Ann. 694; Olson V. Nelson, 3 Minn. 63 (Gil. 22). They cannot be considered as in derogation of the common law, inasmuch as, at common law, real estate was not liable to execution for the payment of debts; Thomp, Horn. & Ex. § 4; Lindley v. Davis, 7 Mont. 206, 14 Pac. 717; but see Ward v. Huhn, 16 Minn. 161 (Gil. 142); Beecher v. Baldy, 7 Mich. 501; Helfensteln & Gore v. Cave, 3 la, 287. Exemption laws giving a right to a homestead are for protection of the citizens of the state only; Prater v. Prater, 87 Tenn. 78, 9 S. W. 361, 10 Am. St Rep. 623, In some states there is a money limit put to the homestead; in others a limit of the quantity of land exempted. The value, under the statute, is the value at the time the homestead is designated; Iken v. Olenick, 42 Tex, 199; contra, Estate of Delaney, 37 Cal. 180. The courts cannot exempt money instead of land; Beecher v. Baldy, 7 Mich, 500; but see Estate of Delaney, 37 Cal. 180, where it was held that if the homestead exceeded the constitutional limit of value, and enough of it could not be separated and subjected to execution to reduce the value to that limit, the property would be sold and the constitutional amount set apart to the debtor. But where it can be separated, it will be, although it is within the same enclosure and used in connection with the dwelling for the use of the family; Herdman V. Cooper, 39 111. App. 330. In Casebolt V. Donaldson, 67 Mo. 308, it was held that the law confers a homestead right only in land and not in the proceeds of the sale of land. therein; Avans v. Everett, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 76; Grelg v. Eastin, 80 La. Ann. 1130; Mc- Grath V. Sinclair, 65 Miss. 89; Watson v. Mc- Kinnon, 73 Tex. 210, 11 8. W. 197; so where land is held by the parties as partners; Commercial & Sav. Bank v. Corbett, 6 Sawy. 543, Fed. Cas. No. 8,058. A learned author gives as the conclusive test of a homestead — “that the form, physical characteristics, and geography of the premises must be such as, when taken in Connection with their use by the owner, and their value when the statute creates a, limit as to value, will convey notice bo persons of ordinary prudence who deal with him that they are his homestead.” Thomp. Horn. & Ex. § 104, citing Houston &

A mansion-house.