Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of this state that when ... a business homestead is conveyed to a corporation ... the property is no longer the homestead of the grantors, even though they may continue to occupy it.”); Sparks v. Robertson, 203 S.W.2d 622, 626 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1947, writ refd) ("One can not have a homestead interest in property the title to which is in neither spouse nor in the community.”); Williams v. Corpus Christi Bank & Trust Co., 104 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex.Civ.App.— San Antonio 1937, writ ref'd) ("After the Williams had conveyed this tract to the Townsite Company, it ceased to be their homestead, and ... the fact that they continued to use the land at the sufferance of the grantees[ ] did not change the situation.”); Hampton v. Gilliland, 23 Tex.Civ.App. 87, 56 S.W. 572, 573-74 (1900, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 7 . See, e.g., Franklin v. Woods, 598 S.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that son who lived on land entirely by virtue of his mothers consent owned no estate to which the homestead right could attach and that the homestead right cannot be based on so precarious a tenure as the sons occupancy at the will of his mother (B) holding that homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were  living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title (C) holding that the general homestead exemption may not be invoked to defeat claims against the holder for taxes and assessments against the homestead property (D) holding that the general rule is that temporary absence from the premises will not itself cause an abandonment of the homestead but to retain the homestead exemption one leaving the homestead must in good faith intend to return albeit the intent to return need not be at any particular time in the future (E) holding that son had no homestead interest in property even though he resided upon it with his fathers consent because son had neither title nor a present right to possess land nor right to demand partition from father who was his cotenant
Output (English): holding that son had no homestead interest in property even though he resided upon it with his fathers consent because son had neither title nor a present right to possess land nor right to demand partition from father who was his cotenant