Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1876-10-13
ruE HOMES GEAD I.AW-aa> o
v,.tN ANDIGS FfsiFND>.

favorite and oft repeated c'"iln y
the Radical party to popular i"Vor II
based upon the assertion tn 't to ltf
legislation is due the wise ana oenus
oient provisions against misfortune
contained in the Homestead law. a
,ora untounded claim was never made
Tba facts of the case are well Fno"1
and show beyond dispute that the
policy of a Homestead ard Personal
,,ro,ertv exemption Was firmly fixed
a. a part and parcel Of the law Of North
c,,oIinn ,oDg before the Radical PARTY
aya, had an existence. The statute
h inks of the State sho v this to be true
beyond all dispute. The records of
the Supreme Court show the same fact
and not only that, but they show that
the leaders of the Radical party know
it TO be g fact. Ii any man doubts,
let him turn to the rec )rd and see for
b. msolf what Thomas Settle the pres
ent Radical candidate for Governor
has to say about the matter.
II the case Of Hill against Kessier,
decided by the Supreme Couct of tie
State at June Term, 1869. n G. Re-
ports, vol. 63, page 437, Judge Settle
united with Judge Reade IN saying
eve have too, our own Legislative
construction and the practice of our
courts under il for the last t,Oe7aty
years. The Revised Code adopted in
1856, makes the exem ption OF Zone
COW and calf, ten barrels of corn or
wheat, fifty pounds Of bacon, beef or
pork, or one barrel of fish, all neces-
sary farming tools for one Iaborer, one
bed, bedstead and covering for every
two members of the family and sncn
other property ss the freeholders may
deem necessary for the comfort and
support of such debtors family such
other property not to exceed fifty dol
lars" apply to all debts contracted
since July 1st, 1S45.
So ~ 1866 ST, our Legislature pass
ed an act exempting "all necessary
farming and mec hanical tools, one
work horse, one yoke of oxen, one ca0t
or wagon, one mich COW and calf,
fifteen head of hogs, five hundred
pounds of pork or bacon, SO bushels
of corn, 20 bushels of wheat and house
hold and kitchen furniture not to ex-
ceed 5000 in value. And this was not
restricted to subsequent contracts,
which is the more significant, as by
the same act homestead of one hun
dred acres without regard to value
was restricted to subsequent debts -
So that exemptions applying to ante
cedent debts have had the sanction of |
our Legislatures and of this Court and |
of the produce of all the Courts for
the last twenty years.
Four years later. in the case of Gar.
ret against Cheshire, N. @. Reports,
vol. SO, page 396, this same Supreme |
Court of NorLA Carolina had the |
Homestead Law again under consid-
Grafton and this same Judge Settle, !
uniting with Judge Reade and repeats
ing the substance of the act of 1856
(Revised { Code) and the act of 1866-'67,
above referred to, says:
1T is apparent that an allotment of |
these articles approximates $1,000, aud |
III many cases would exceed that sum
in value. And the same act allows a
homestead Of 100 acres without re-
as to value, which in many
cases would be worth, with the i'm
many thousands. In 1858
our constitution was adopted, and in
that our present homestead law is
limited to $1,000 realty, not in fee
simple, but for limited time and
to the value of $500. Can
it be said of our homestead law, as
the learned Judge said of the Georgia
Jaw, that any one casting his eye over
them. as compared with former exemp-
lions would be struck by the magui-
tude of the increase our homestead
,da0 IS not an increase but a restrdc-
ton upon former exemptions"
Two years later, or nearly two years,
the same court had the same question
once more under consideration, and
for the third time repeated the history
Of the North Carolina homestead law. |
In the case of Wilson against Sparks,
decided at the January term, 1875, and |
in N. @. Reports, vol. 72,
page 20S, Judge Settle again uniting
with Judge Reade, declares
"We have had exemption laws for
ong time, varying with the times, de-
,larlng upon their face the purpose to
secure nscessaries and comforts for
amilies until they have become part
Of the policy of the State. With Us
it has been no rash experiment nor
spasm of prejudice of the debtor
against the creditor class, but it has |
had q regular qrotOth.of half q cen
oy, increasing from time to time as |
our necessity required and as their |
coed effects We're apparent. As en-
bodied in Our Revised Code of 1854, |
The exemptions of personal property |
are by articles named ; and in many |
cases; according to the size aud cir
of families, they might at
east equal the present exemptions.
Up to 1866 81, w'.en We had another
statute, they were increased until IL
many instances they might have
doubled the personal exemptions. Up |
to 184S we had no Teai estate exemp- |
tlons, and even husbands interest |
In his wlfe's est te, which was for his |
lie or for hers, as the case might be, |
Was subject to execution sale for bis |
debts. LIZ 1913 that interest was ex-
empted. IL 1858 we had a statute |
which made further exemption of 80 !
acres or town lot, two acres, not ex-
ceedlng $500 in value. In 1866 67 |
,nat oa was changed tc an exemption OF
1oo acres without limit as to value"
ihe upshot of the whole of it, then,
II Judge Settle Can be believed, lis
''at the claim of the Radical party to
popular favor, based upon its action
IN regard to the Homestead law, is
utterly without foundation, for the
simple reason that the white men and |
the Democrats had already established
homestead law broader and more !
oeneticent than the one now existing
before the Radical party came into
e1lStenco COnmaut T1nOo Such q |