Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-05-08
M1istellamepns &eading,
THE HOMESTEAD DECISION.

Subioined is the full text of the decision Of
the Supreme Court of the United States, in
which the question is decided adversely to the
validity of homestead laws when applied to
antecedent debts The case upon which the
decision was rendered, came up from the su-
preme Court of Georgia under writ Of error,
and is entitled "John Mex. Gum, plaintiff in
error, vs. Charles F. Barry" Mr.. Justice
Swayne delivered the opinion of the Court,
as follows
This is writof error to the Supreme Court
of the State of Georgia.
On the 18th of May, 1866, the plaintiff in
error recovered in the superior court of Ran
dolph county, a judgment against William B.
Hart, for the sum of S4O23O principal and
S129.60 interest up to the judgment and costs.
An execution was issued upon the judgment,
and placed in the hands Of the defendant in
error as sheriff of that county. He was there
by commanded to make the sums above men-
toned and further interest upon the principal
from the 18th of May, 1866, and the costs.
The plaintiff in error requested him to levy
upon tract of land Of 272! acres, belonging
to Hart, the defendant in the judgment.
Barry refused. He assigned as the only
reason for his refusal that the premises had
been set off to Hart under the provisions of
the act passed by the General Assembly of
the State, and approved October 3, 1869, en-
titled can act to provide for setting apart a
homestead of realty and personally, and the
valuation of said property, and for the full
and complete protection 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 purposes"
Gum thereupon petitioned the superior
court Of the county for writ of mandanaals 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 SUBJ
ject to the lien of his judgment, except a
tract of % acres, of the value of $780, stu
ated in the county of Stuart, which was also
included in the homestead so set apart that
the premises in question were worth the
sum of $1,000, and that they embraced a
much larger number of acres than the real
estate exempt from levy and sale by the laws
in force when the judgment was recovered,
dllu WHICH, VIC uSUb VII NuiSu ~ nao luuuucu
was contracted.
1t does not appear that these allegations
were denied, and we do not understand that
there is any controversy upon the subject.
After full hearing 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
judgment.
The first section of seventh article of the
constitution of Georgia Of 1868, provides that
leach head of family, or guardian or trustee
of family or minor children, shall be entitled
to homestead of realty to the value of $4,000
in specie, and personal property to the value
of $1,000 in specie, to be valued at the time
they are set apart, and no court or ministerial
officer in this State shall ever have jurisdic.
tion or authority to enforce any judgment,
decree, or execution against said property so
set apart, including such improvements as
may be made thereon, from time to time, ex-
cept for taxes, money borrowed or expended
in the improvement Of the homestead, or for
the purchase money of the same, and for
| labor done thereon, or material furnished