The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1873-05-08
HoYT & CO., Proprietors.

HoYT & CO., ProprietorE
Decision Of tine Supreme Court Of the United
States on the Homestead Law. -
The following is the full and official report of
Che important decision on the Homestead Law
as pronounced by Associate Justice Swayne, in
che Supreme Court Of the United States:
John Mex. Gunn, plaintiff in error, ss. Charles
z. Barry. 5,a- :r4.3.i=s.s
THIS is awrit Of error to che Supreme Court
Of the State of Georgia. {
On the 18th of May, 1866, the. plaintiff in er-
ror recovered in the Supreme Court OF Kan
dolph county judgment against VIM a. 3; % nas5 e6
for the sum of $4O2 80 principal, and S129 81
Interest up to the date of the judgment, and
costs. An execution was issued upon the Judg-
ment. and placed in the hands of the defendant
sn error as sheriff of that county. he was
thereby commanded to make the sums above
mentioned and further interest upon the prin-
Cipal from the 18th of May, 1896, and the costs.
The plaintiff in erro requested him to levy
upon tract Of ls5d of 2722 acres, belonging
90 Hart, the desadanti in the Judgment Bar
ryrefused. Ee assigned as the only reason for
his refusal snat tho premises had been set OF to
Hart nnaer the provisions of the act passed by
the General Assembly of the. State, and ap-
proved October Sd, 1869, entitled "An act, to
provide for setting apart a homestead of realty
and personally. and for the valuation Of said
property, and for the full and complete Protec-
ton and security Of the same to the sole use
and benefit of families, as required by section
first of article seventh of the Constitution, and
for other purposesS' ~
Gum fhereupon petitiolled the Superior
Court of the county for wIittf mandamus to
compel the sheriff. to make the levy.
The petition set forth that the land in ques-
ton was the only property known to him sub
.iect TO the lien, of his Judgment except tract
OF. 2S acres of the value of Sl0O, situated in
the county of Stewart, which was also included
in the homestead so set apart; that the prem
Uses In question were worth the sum OF Sl,SuO,
and thas they embraced much larger number
of acres than the real estate exempt from levy
and sale by the laws in force when the judg-
ment was recovered and when the debt on
which il was founded was contracted.
1T does not appear; that these allegations
were denied, and wesdo not understand that
there Is any controversy upon The subject.
After full heaAAg the Court affirmed the.
validity Of the act in its retrospective aspect,
and gave judgment against the petitioner. The
Supreme Court Of the State affirmed this judg-
ment.
The first section of seventh article of the
Constitution of Georgia of 1865 provides that
"each head Of a family, or guardian or trustee
of a family Of minor children, shall be enti-
tied toa homestead of realty 10 the value OF
$1,000 in specie, and personally property TO the
value of 81. 600 in specie, to be, valued at the
time they are set apart, and no Court or minis
terial officer in this State shah ever have Juris-
diction or authority to enforce any judgment,
decree, or execution against ssld property 80
set apart, including such improvement as may
be made thereon from time to time, except Tor
taxes, money borrowed or expended IN the I'M
provement of the homestead, or for the Pur-
chase money of: the same, and for labor done
thereon, or material furnished therefor, or re-
1noyal of membranes thereon"
The first section of the act OF the Sd OCTOBER,
1858, is In the same terms.
It may we'll be doubted whether botn these
provisions were not intended to be wholly pros
pective in their effect
But as we understand the Supreme Court of
the State has come to different conclusion, we
shall not consider the question.
The statute in force when the judgment was
rendered declared that the following property
belonging to debtor who was the head OF a
family should be exempt from levy and sale
(to.wit:) "Fifty acres Of Land and i've addi-
tional ones for each Of the children under the
age of sixteen years, the land to INCLUDE the
dwelling house, if The same and improvements
do not exceed two hundred dollars; one farm
horse or mule, one cow and calf, ten head OF
hogs, and fifty dollars worth Of provisions, and
Eve dollars worth additional for each child
beds. bedding, and common be1steads sufficient
for the family; one loom, one spinning wheei,
and two pairs of cards, and one hundred POUNDS
of lint cotton; common tools Of trade for HIM
self and his wife equipments. and arms OF
militia soldier and troopers horse; ordinary
ceokine. utensils and table cookery; wearing
apparel of himself and. family; family Bible,
RELIGIOUS works and school books family por.
traits the library of professional man In ac-
tual practice or business not exceeding three
hundred dollars in value, to be selected by him.
self"
No one can cast his eyes over the former and
latter exemptions, without being struck by the
greatly increased magnitude Of the latter.
Section 10 of article of the Constitution OF
the United States declares that "no State shall
pass any law impairing the obligation OF con-
tracts"
If the remedy is part of the obligation of
the contract, clearer case of impairment can
hardly occur than is presented In the record
before us.
The effect of the act in question. under the
circumstances of this judgment, does not In
deed merely impair, it annihilates the remedy;
There is none left. But the act reaches still
further. It withdraws the land from the lien
of the Judgment, and thus destroys vested
right Of property which the creditor had ac-
o1ired in the pursuit of the remedy to which
he was entitled by the law as is stood when the
;n6ornent was recovered. It is in effect taking