, 1863-11-06

~ sssfeao4 u eoShaoataesse"os @Ho@stts ". H'1 |
Il he next cafe; the husband IN 1852 had
cnye5ed 1he homestead to trnstee for the
eneft # his wife. His creditors flied q bill
, subject the property to the payment Of hls
lent and void. A bill of review was filed by
be Wife; but tie court held it was for the
usband to c1aIm the benefit Of the statute It
( choee, and that If he did not. the wife,
gfile the husband was living, could not en-.
o1ce the exemption. And That bis convey
ice being made to hinder and defraud csedi-
orr, orr was eG9a rs. Is 2ga7,t E1S hin-csr T. S.
Thea bove decition WAS ofcourse unaffected
y tie amendment Of 1S57, 10 which, indeed,
he ccu1t do not refer.
In claiming uader the Law, whether by bill OF |
answer, 1t mnat appear that the lot Of ground has
= .See dstos iR'fa ass ss s.
having fEmily "a wife constitutes family, and
that the d. bt Wss not incurred for the purchase OF
Should md Il facts required BY the statute; We
think more than occupancy" merely, which may
be 81 a tenant. Is required on the past os the
sS b sss ., 1s 9ssse s @ns: I'd oa ~
family reeides-it must be their "home-n Each
case must, however, depend on it's oTn peculiar
circnmstauces, 90 that among them no evidence
tsnil;1Ge1 hna'i r. .Gaed e. = 5n1a,;sn. a ID z.
- Mortgage in 1854 Of homestead by
yauzant and wife, acknowledge in gsual
form. In November, 1857, Mrs. Va1.
zaut- tled . bill for divorce and NIL
mopy. Decree Of divorce rendered March,
1858, giving the children to her, and that Rhe
S re1e aa9esy aa to Sy e nastef
The mortgage subsequently filed bill to
torec1ose, ard Mrs: Vauzant asking another
affirmative relief, and the Supreme Court de.
creed that she should hold the premises as
her own property, free and clear Of the mort
gags inenm .n mhtanee--Fa"sont v Fansane, rs
This decision is scarcely intel1jgible, from any
thing which appears In the report It Is true
TINT the court, In giving their opinion appear
TO rely somewhat On the dec1es rendered In
mortgaeor pu1chased the premises with his
wife's money. But It is difficult to see how
the Dorteagee could be prejudlced BY suit
to which be Tas not md cbuld not be party,
nor how the original equities betTeen the
:. In the above case the wffe's release was IN.
neceEeary, the mortgage being executed prior
to 1857. But that Of the husband, the court
fay. cannet be dispenBed with
houseSolders ia,ni|y. release Of - waiver of he he
exemption must be formal one {aud the usual
eoyf nants Of warranty cannot operate as such)
being 70 expressed snd signed By ths srantor 1he
uenA1 form Of acknowledgment il sufficient II to
him. Hut ~ regards the wife who Joins in the exc
a ct ct &C. M n'Ha IL eyne say stt
with the couTeyance act would require that the
ofaee. taking ,he acknowledgment sho1ld certify
e. e. M f IN md % III ehe hs. q sef sd s qa sa
waived al right a2d benefit under it-'
4 Judgment and execution do not create
lien against the homestead Of the Judgment
debtor, and he maj eel or mortgage II free
from the lien Of the Judgment. It will 70
in o. frFfY SH1 m h&
r 229 :
The benefit Of the law will not attach to
premlses By their being homestead, after
:he execution OF mortgage, (as against The
1ightsss s. Of Il 5he : n2estgagee)-fecomiek 2 FL
Ayendor's lien is protected BY the second
section Of the Homesfead act. But this may be
lost h 4 taAtgg + 81 new securtty-Rapsr T. Cor
Aperson having life estate in land Is to be
deemed the ''owner,' - within the meaning ef
esyF Judge Breeze, tsas remedial in its nature,
ard it must be 20 CONTINUED a. most efactu.
ally to meet the benevolent end In view. We
wculd say that fair construction Of the act,
1lth reference to ita objects and purposes,
would embrace within It any estate which the
debtor might own In the lot and buildings
thereon, occupied az residence, which could
%s+~%~$ANAAs
III 4. GLE.
AZ almcst every vested interest In real estate,
whether in possession CT remainder, and
whe,her legal or equitable, might have been
eold en- execution. 1t will be seen that the
shield Of the hcmestead act is as broad as any
debtor could desire.
"a sale under trust teed, or under apower OF
tbe | pateace "a q tbe 1sT of Isl DO not come Nthin
e. s gassf,!sns e M o1 'is M ho%sttSaa @ ill., o.
A homestead right cannot be set up to
detcat the foreclosure Of mortgsge given for
part # the purchase money.-Hetderu Clark,
4 debtors property Is not exempt from sale
on: execution BY becoming homestead after
a Judgment IL rendered agafnst him. 1
1t seems that stable, q house lot, smoke.
houte ard grounds Herewith connected, to-
xether with the dwelling house. would be
included IN the exemption, where It exits
but th.t store and ware house would not
/ A. releaee by widow cannot affect the In.
fs[sis ii, ( e 9o h'f eaidrsn.-14<' =. 1''<&'S' =
It The eetate mortgaged is claimed as s
homestead, and the exemption has not beer
waived, strict foreclosure ehen1d net BE- q
lowed; the eale should be made subject tc
that right. Ard this, the contt say, would
| prevent a delivery Of the possession If q salt
was made, whilst the wife lives should she
become Wldow, or untn her youngest child
shall become Of age.
The desertlon Of family by the tather, ths
family stu Occupying the homestead ts MOI
! an abandonment Of It. 1t still remains his
home md residence at Lest uatI1 1t is proved
that he has acquired a home and settlement
elsewhere. g. ,Dunning, - IN. z. lS0
In the above caEe trust deed WAS executed
BY husband and wife In 185S. In the b3dy o
the 6eed the grantors, "in consideration Q
one do]lar, waived and re1Inquished all rich
and benefit Of exemption Of said premises
under the exemption 1aWs Of the State OF Il
linois.'' AID the officer taking their &c
acknowledgement, certified that, after be hst
made the wife acquainted with the content
ard meaning of sid Instrument, on sepa
rate examination, Sc, she ackno Tledged tha
Rhe had executed the sane and relinquishet
her dover and all rights s9ta{arr In the Eait
lsrds and tenemsnts-
Rr ca4.ia,n. tThis trust deed was not nc
Enowlesged as required by The statute In Or
der to release the Homestead. Consequently
the family, It remained unaffected BY tha
deed, evsn II the deed could take effect afte
th.t, which Is point re do notn deci3e.
Passlbly this decision was unaToidable, bu
We fear that Ito eject will be very unfortunate
The aboEe torm Of waiver is in printe'
there arc too many dishonest men who vii
be only too happy to escape their just ob1iga
tons In the manner thus pointed ont. al
eIpc1ience shows that In the analogous cas-
Of dover, claims are otten made, for infor
maltty ii the acknowledgment, under Ct,
cpmstapces Of great injustice. "1n al m
experience" said the late Jndge Mclean, -
haze never known Al instance Of fraud or In
poeitlon on married woman In p1oeurin
her relinquiehnent OF dover; but haV
known numerous instances where dover ha
been claimed and recovered undar clrcun
stances that might be termed legal swindloS
Rott4tu d Fridge, 5 1'eLean's r.. gs.
"The amendment Of 1857 cut mp by the roots =