Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1869-04-03

sane unless by the consent ti the
wife, ia such manner AS tho Lays
lature may hereafter poln, on,
I The meaning OF this provision is
as free from ambiguity as language
"an Wake II,
rhe Constitution defines a rural
homestead, as we'll rs an urban
homestead, and places . limit on
each, beyond vhioh we eRQnut pass,
either directly Ol Indirectly; either
by an open disregard and direct do
fianee OF its requirements, or indi-
! reelly, by aseribing TO woili and
terms a definition unauthorized
either by common usage or by the
context.
4 tract Of land, without n house,
tent or camp, OF some kind, fur
nishing its owners ,.,from storms II
shelter aud from heat II shade
without any Of the parephernalia
necessary ior comloh or existence
cannot be called n homestead for u
civilized mani even savagcs have
their primitive and movable tents
and tho wild beasts have their
shelters. Neither can house,
camp or tent, whether composed If
wood, stone, clay or cloth, or OF u
combination thereof, have nm cxis.
thncc without land to rest upon.
1t takes both land and n house to
constitute n homo, and this house,
when owned by tho occupants, is
the homestead. Tho value of the
ho!hcs,crd is estimated by ascer-
tanning the sum Of all its parts, and
not of any one Of them. The land
in its primitive and natural state, is
estimated from its fertility, its SUI
ubrily, its com'iicrcial and manu-
featuring advantages, and this value
may be enhanced or diminished nc
cording TO circumstances. There
may also be an estimate made Of
tie trees, shrubbcry,. fences, orna-
mental walks and driyGs, oisterns,
fountains, houses, and other fix
Tires placed thereon, but the value
of tho homestead is estimated by
taking into Consideration the value
of both land and fixtures. 1t can.
not be even supposed that the
trainers Of the constitution, in eX-
empting q homestead from forced
sale, permitted the house, situate
upon n lot or lots not exceeding two
thousand dollars in value, without
estimating the house, to be sold by
the Sheriff.
Ono who would seriously advo-
cate that u husband, without the
consent or the wife, could sell the
house, provided the land should be
worth two thousand dollars, eXclu-
sivc of the house, would not place
high estimate upon the method
taken BY the trainers Of the consti-.
tuition to preserve the homestead TO
the wife intact. Even had tho con-
stitution exempted from forced sale,
town lot of q family, without
specifying it as homestead, the
universal understanding, that the
fixtures upon real estate arc part
Of tho fealty, would have left no
doubt Of its construction.
The views we have taken are in
no respect different from what has
been decided by this Court, when.
ever the question has arisen rcquir-
ing IFS decision. In, Wood rs.
Wheeler, I ftaas, p. iB, Chas. ].
Hcmphill dwelt somewhat cxtcn-
sively upon the homestead question,
and on page % assumes as a matter
without controversy, that the 'im-
provcmcnts on lot cannot be sep
arated from the lot.
In North ps,, Shcarn, IS Texas, p.
175, the question beforc the Court
was whether, when lot was worth
S400, and the improvements thereon
*6ts worth S30O-total S34OO, tic
excess OF $1400 over $1,000 was LA
bic to exemption in Favor of Il cred
itor, Judge Wheeler, in giving the
opinion of the Court, sustained the
position on the authority Of Wood
rs. Wheeler.
In Hancock Is. Morgan, II Tex
as, p. 594, similar question arose
and Similarly decided by Judge |
Lipscomb.
In Franklin vs. Coffee, IS Texas,
d. 4lG, lib dctnhdant in the judg
ment claimed an exchil ton of two
hundred acres of land, on which
there once had been a house and |
somo land in cultivation, but not at
the time of trial-Chas. j. Hemp
hill stated as the opinion Of the
Court, that "a homestead nccessari,
ly includes the idea of house for
and because tho dcftn-
dant did not reside on the premises,
it was not his homestead, and was
liable to be sold at forced sale.
In Williams Es. Jenkins, 25 Tex
as, p. 306, the District Court had
decided that the $4,000 exemption
related to the lot or lots and not to
the improvements thereon. The
of tho counsel in enter
the position of the DIS ret
Court, was exhaustive of the sub,
iect, and amply vindicatcry Of their
high reputation. Judge Roberts,
speaking for the Court, said in
a lot or lots that constitute
n homestead, the Improvements
would naturally be understood 10
be included in the valuation, Unless
excluded The term lot,
in commod use, means a peace or
parcel of land, and a conveyance of
It would carry with it any improve
inehts that might be erectea on it,"
The decisions herein quoted en-
brace q period of the first fifteen
years after the adoption OF the con
,titution, and formed The settled