Case ID: ga_29/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "— Lumpkin J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William F. Davis, plaintiff in error, vs. William C. Henson, Sheriff, defendant in error.
    The Homestead Exemption Acts in this State, do not protect property from judgments founded on torts; they apply expressly and exclusively to judgments founded on contracts.
    
    Rule against Sheriff, in Union Superior Court. Decision by Judge Rice, May Term, 1859.
    » This was a rule taken out by William F. Davis, against the Sheriff of Union county, to show cause why he had not made the money on a certain execution in his hands, issued in favor of said Davis, against William Jackson, The Sheriff answered,‘that, under and by virtue of said execution, he had levied on a certain lot or parcél of land belonging to defendant, which was claimed by him as exempt from levy and sale, under the homestead exemption Acts. To this plaintiff replied, that said execution issued upon a judgment obtained in an action of slander against defendant, and that the exemption laws did not apply or extend to judgments recovered in cases of tort, but only to those obtained in cases ex contractu.
    
    The Court held the showing sufficient, and decided that the land was exempt from levy and sale under the provisions of the Acts exempting a certain quantity of land from levy and sale, &c., and discharged the rule. To which decision counsel for plaintiff excepted.
    William Martin, represented by Ezzard, for plaintiff in error.
    No counsel appeared for defendant in error.
   — Lumpkin J.

By the Court.

delivering the opinion.

The single question in this case is, whether the Homestead Exemption statute in this State, protects property from judgments founded on torts? An inspection of the several Acts, shows clearly that they do not, but that they apply expressly and exclusively to judgments founded on contracts. Cobb, 385, 389, 390.

Whether this discrimination should be made, it is for the Legislature, and not for the Courts to decide.

Judgment reversed.