Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1878-05-09
THE HOMESTEAD DECISION.
Supreme CO.srt 0s tlaa Emitted
States,
No. 56e -OcroBER TERM. 1877.

| SHDfeB1AC SOksNs 0s
states,
No. 56G -OcroBER TERM. 1877.
/ Plaintiff in Error, preme Court of the
| VS. State of North Caro-
! Archibald Kearzy. lima.
By MIR. JUSTICE SwAYNE DELIVERED
THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The titution of Noltn Ca, oil.
ma OF 1868 took effect on the 24th
OF April in that year. Sections ]
and 3 OF article Z declare that per
sonal property of any resident OF
the State, Of the value of EEe hun
dred dollars, tn he selected bv such
resident, shall be exempt from sale
under execution or other final pre-
cess issued for the collection of any
deht and that every homestead
and the bindings used herewith,
rot exceeding in Value one thons-
and dollars. to be selected by the
owner, on in lieu thereof, at the OPP
,iou of the owner, any lot in IL city.
town or village, With the buildings
nsed theleon owned and occupied
by any resident Of the State, and
Oof exceeding in value one th"ns-
! and dollars, shall he exempt in like
mariner from sale for the collection
of any debt under final process.
On the 22l OF August. 1868 the
Legislature passed nE act which
prescribed the mode of laying off
the homestead and Sc ting off the
personal property so exempted by
the cunStitu ton. On the 7th OF
April, 1869, another act was passed
which repealed the p'i"r act and
prescribed q different mode "f do
ing what the prior act provided for.
This latter act has noi been re-
pealed or mulifed.
Thee several judgments Eere
recovered against the defendant Id
esror-one oil the 18th of Dece :
Der, 1868, upon ho ID dated the
25th of Sep'emhe 1855; another
ON the 10Th of October, 1868 up"n
:. bond dated February 9th. 1866 f.;
ard the thild on the 7th of Jau1a
ry, 1868, for IL debt due prior to
that time. Two Of these Judgments
were d. cketed and became heEs
npon the premises IN controversV
on the 10Th of December, 1863
The o her one was dncketed aud
ht came eucA lien on the Is b OF
JauQary, 1869. When the debts
were cuuIrac: ed for which the
judgments were rendered the es-
rmptiou laws IL fo,ce were the acts
oi Jtnuarv l, 1854, and of Februl-
10Th. 1859. The first named act
exempted certain enumerated anti.
cIes OF inconsiderable value ard
'~uch other property as the free
holders appointed for that purpose
might desin necessary for the com
fort and support of the debt S
f4mlIy, not exceeding in value Fifty
uoIlgns at cash valuation" BY the
act Of 1869 the exemption Was e1-
tended to fifty acres OF land IN the
county, or two acres in a towE OF
not greater value than five huudred
dollars.
90 the 22nd Of january. 1869
the premises in controversy we, e
duly set off TO the defeudan in er-
ror as a homes,ead. He had 10
other real estate, aud the premises
did not exceed thousand dollars
in value. On the 9Th of March,
1869, the sheriff, Under executions
Issued on the Judgments, sold the
premises to tile plaintiff IN error,
and thereafter executed to him ii
deed in due form. The regularity
of the sale is not contested.
The act OF August % 1868, was
then i, force. The acts If 1864
aud 1859 had been repealed. Will
son ". Sparks, u n. q. r., 2ll
No p int is made upon these acts
by the counsel upon either side.
We shall therefore pass them by
without further rema, k.
The plaintiff in error brought
this action III the Superior Court
Of Granville county to recover pos
session of the premises SO sold and
conveyed to him. That court ad
judged that the exemption created
by the constitution aud the act OF
1853 protected the property flom
1llabiilty under the Judgments, and
that the sale aud CONVEYANCE by
THE sheriff were. theref.te, void
Judgment was given accordingly
The Supreme Court of the State
affirmed :he Judgment. The plain.
tltf in error thereupon brought the
case here 70, review. The only
/ federal question presented by the
record is, whether the exemption
was valid as regard contracts mad.
before he adoption of the copsti
tuition of 1868.
The counsel for the plaintiff i,
error insists upon the negative 0
this proposition. The counsel up
on the other side frankly conced
ing several minor points, main
tainsl the affirmative view. Gu
remarks, will be confined to thi
subject. -:
The Constitution of The Unite,