The semi-weekly Republican. (St. Francisville, La.) 1872-1872, 1872-03-15
Chr Stnsi-as'eek,u a,cpubl;tan.
FRIDAY MARCH Is, 1872.
THE HOMESTEAD LAW.

Powell, Esq, sitting us Special Judge,
in tho snit Of Nelson Taylor VS.. r. v.
4cakc, Sheriff Il ais, will be read
with interest by members Of the Bar.
An appeal however, has been taken
from the Judgment rendered in this
case. Wickliae & Fischer, attorneys
for plaintiff. Collins u Leako, for
defendants.
NELSON TAYLOR, vs.. +. Y. LEAKE
SHERIFF, En-. AIS.
The plaintiff enjoins the sale of
certain property, specifically named,
and claims that it is exempt from
seizure and sale under the act op-
proved 22d December 1866, entitled!
an sc act to exempt from seizure and
sale homestead and other property"
It appears that in 1870, plaintiff, us
lessee, Of the Citizens Bank, cultiva-
ted the Mulberry Hill Plantation in
this Parish, and had large transac-
tions with Jake Mitchell, the defcn-
dant. On Goth january 1871 in suit
No. 1856 in this Court Mitchell sued
the present plaintiff for $3.50 05l100
the balance then due on their trans
notions for 1870, and under the
act Of 1868, page 2o2, attached all
the property Of this plaintiff, includ-
ing that now in controversy. 1t also
appears that on 10Th january 1871,
the plaintiff attempted to sell to
Mann Il Fisher all his personal prop
erty including that now in dispute,
and the next day Mann & Fisher
transferred it to one Wiley JONES'
Jones interviewed in that suit, and
claimed the property as his own, as
transferee Of Mann & Fisher. There
was Judgment in favor Of Mitchell,
and against Nelson Taylor, the de-
PENDANT, in said suit, and also against
Jones the Intervenor : the property
attached was declared to be subject
to the payment of Mitchell's demand.
and his privilege as an attaching
creditor was recognized. No other
privilege was asked for or recogniz-
cd. All this property having thus
been adjudicated to belong to Tay-
Tor, and subject to the payment Of
his debts, a FL. Ia, issued on this
II, =; : agnent, and it WAS all seized and
. 'od a sale gaayl }S7s enjoined the
sale, in part, and claimed certain ex-
ceptlons as above stated. The prop
erty, the sale OF which is now en-
joined, consists Of so acres Of land,
one horse, one wagon, two cows and
calves, three hogs, and 100 bushels
Of corn. The corn, however, was
not seized and docs not enter into
this controversy. These comprise all
the property that was left to Taylor
after the partial execution of the III.
Fa., the aggregate value OF which
does moi exceed 5000. It also ap-
pears that the obligation which forms
the basis Of the Judgment OH which
execution issued, was contracted in
1870, and subsequent to the passage
of the Homestead Act invoked by
plaintiff. It is further in evidence
that the plaintiff is an old man and
farmer, and has an aged wife, with
out means, and entirely dependent
on him for support, and that he
has several grandchildren partially
dependent OH him.
The plaintiff has clearly brought
himself under the provisions Of the
Homestead Act.
1t is objected by defendants coun-
sci that Taylor has o COW in his pos
session and not seized, and by law
he is entitled to two only, and his
demand for one should be rejected.
The testimony OF plaintiff IS all We
have on this subject. He says the
third COW belongs to his daughter
who resides i'll the city Of New Or
leans-that he gave her a COW while
he resided on Mulberry Hill, and
while she was at his house-that this
COW was killed by a neighhor who
paid him $40. for her and with
these $40. he purchased the COW re-