Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1868-06-12

Bankrupt Deciaion = United States Dis.
trict Court stttinE In B~aukruptcy.. In
The Mater Of che Petition Of Alfred La
On tho l0I t.y Of July, 1867, Alfred Lafec
was adjudicsted bankrupt by this Court. In
his schedule Of assets, he describes certain
real estate, in the town OF Gold Hill, which
no claims ~ q homestead. This property
was by the register conveyed to the assignee,
who has taken possession, collected rents
therefrom, and is offering It for sale. The
bankrupt applies to tho Court to restrain this
interference BY the assignee, upon the ground
that the property Is BY law exempt. The
Bankrupt Act, in its fourteenth section, pro-
vides that such property as is exempted from
levy and sale By the laws Of the State In
which the insolvcnt has his domicil, TO an
amount not exceeding that allowed BY such
laws, In force in the year 1854, shall be re-
served to the bankrupt:
The law in force in Nevada, in 1854, ex-
empted from forced sale on execution the
homestead, consis,ing Of q quantity OF land,
together with the dwelling house thereon,
and It's appurtcnsnces, not to exceed in value
the sum OF Ave thousand dollars. The prem
ises which this bankrupt claims 10 be thus
exempt, consist Of two lots numbered n and
%, upon the official map Of the town Of Gold
Hill. These lots are separate from each
other, each Of them being completely en-
closed. Lot q contains the dwelling house
Of Lafee, a hotel, q Chinese wash house, and
a barn. Upon lot % stands 4 brewery. Can
the bankrupt hold as q homestead both these
lots, segregated as they are from each other,
and devoted TO purposes 30 distinct and vari-
ouss I am clear that no cannot. l confess
that It il with SOM reluctance that l concede
A. L.. Al. -haln ~ los Of pnnn vwhtah his
dwelling stands.
What IL a homestead? Webster defines
il, "The enclosure or ground Immediately
connected with the mansion" The statute
declares tito DO ga quantity Of land, together
with tho dwelling house thereon, and It's ap-
purtenances;" to my mind clearly limiting
the exemption to that portion Of tho debtors
estate which he dedicates and uses as a
home. In Ackley vs. Chamberlain, l6, Cal.
1888, tho Court admits that 1t requires a lati-
tudinarian construction Of the statute to hold
a building used partly for business and partly
for family purposes, to be a homestead. In
that case Mr.. Chief Justice Field uses the
following language:
IA homestead Is the residence OF the fam
ily-is the place where tho home is-and II
would seem unreasonable, upon first impress
sions, that premises should be regarded as a
homestead, unless devoted principally TO such
| residence and home. It would seem unreal
sonable, for example, that o gas factory
should DO impressed with the character Of q
homestead, because tho owner resided with
his family in the upper story Of the building,
or that the store house should become exempt
from execution, because tho owner occupied
the basement in the same way. The question
whether property devoted chiefly to business
purposes can be subject to q homestead claim
= kIl - Observation-Disclosures and N.A ~ a
quired to lay down any positive rule on the
subject in the present case. In this case the
building was intended for a dwelling house,
AZ well as a hotel. It was tho intention Of
the owner in its construction to make It his
residence. It was occupied by him and his
family as such residence before II vas ever
| used Us q hotel. The nature and extent OF
| the business did not interfere with its gen.
eral character as q dwelling house. The
keeping Of boarders and the accommodation
| Of dodgers and travellers, were not inconsist-
cnt with the main purpose Of taking up the
one hundred and sixty acres, and the erection
Of the building.
The promises in question here are com
plete in themselves. They are not used by
the bankrupt Is his residence on the con-
trary, they are only adapted to purposes ludi.
crously Inconsistent with any such idea.
4uC Aoa9S 10 Aka1t ePSh -
neighboring and separate piece Of ground.
In Davies vs.. Ayers, % Cal. ITO, It was
held that the property claimed as a home
stead must be used as a home; see also,
| Cook VS.. McChristiau, 4 Cal. %. It has been
| claimed BY the counsel for tho bankrupt in
this case, that / am bound by the construc-
ton given to the Act Of 1854, BY the Supreme
| Court Of the State. / admit that in constru-
ing q State statute I ought to follow the de-
cisions Of the highest State tribunal. I do
not think, however, that any decision Of the
Supreme Court Of Nevada opposes the cor
~rectness Of the judgment pronounced here.
In our general views upon tho subject Of
statutory homestead exemption, wo may
case was never before that tribunal. / have
is, I think, in point.
Goldman vs.. Clark, l New. Rep. COZ, pre-.
sentcd the question whether a building could
be held NJ q homestead, which was used both
as a dwelling for the family and boarding
house for the public.
In Clark vs.. Shannon, 2 New. Rep. 568,
the premises consisted Of two lots divided by
imaginary lines, upon one Of which stood the
family home, upon the other q livery stable.
II in that case tho livery stable had, BY fence
and enclosure, been made q separate and dis
tinct establishment from the family resi-
dcnee, it can hardly be supposed that the
learned Judges would have held 1t part or
appurtenance Of the homestead. In respects
| already noticed, the cases cited differ from
that at bar. / shall limit tho exemption
claimed BY the bankrupt to lot No. q, which
includes his home.
The assignee il directed to set apart so
much Of the estate, and to dispose Of the re.
mainder for the benefit Of the creditors.
BALDWIN, ].