The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-11-09
COURT.

An Imnortant Decision, and The only Ohe
of Its Nature Ever Delivered In This
State.
Shryock & Rowland, plaintiffs in error
vs.. J. ID. Latimer ct mex, IN
error. The property in controversy origin
ally belonged to ]. d. Latimer, one OF the
defendants in error, who, in copartnership
with one Gully, carried on, in a stone house
on the lot, a mercantile business, until
about the close of the year 1876, at when
time he became financially embarrassed
and ceased to do business as a merchant
and since that time he has never conducted
on the property any mercantile or other
business.
The upper part of the house upon the lou
was used by Latimer, he being a married
man, as a residence, from the first OF the
year 1876. until about the LIST OF November,
1876, at which time he removed MS family
To a house on the east half of block 40, in
the same town, which was distant from the
lot upon which the store house is
some three or four n yar bas
continuously resided since that time. Lat
inner has not occupied the store-house
for any purpose since his removal there
from, and about the LIST of September, 1871,
rented it TO Charles Black, who occupied 1t
and used it for mercantile purp oses ABOUT
one year, and it. has been rented TO other
persons continuously since BLACK ceased 10
use it; rent for the property has been ABOUT
$50 per month. .
business in 1876, he has been engaged in
clerking for other persons, and doing sucn
other work as he could get to do, n since
said time has been mainly dependent upon
the rents received from the property III
controversy for a support.
The property in controversy was soIu W.
der an execution when issued unoei
n. tavorof Plaintiff in error against
Gully 81 Latimer, and was bought by,
plaintiffs in execution, who received q deco
from the sheriff therefor on the 18th OF
FEBRUARY, 1878.
the property above referred TO ana 10
other town lots, which Will pe
hereafter referred to, against Latimer anu
wife. who, as a defense, in so far as the
store. and lot upou which 1t stands is
concerned. set up that the same was pro-
,tected to them against forced sale. under
the constitution, as the place OF business OF
the husband, and they claim haiti has
al ways been the intention OF Latlmer to
resAne business as a merchant when MS
financial condition is suck as to enable MIN
TO do 30. 49,.
the family, in O city, town or village, a
honest. I'd, which "shall consist OF q lot or
lots not to exceed in value $4,000 at the
ume of their designation as their nome
stead. without reference to the value OF any
Improvement theron, provided that the
same shall be used for the purposes OF a
home or as a place to exercise the Gazing
| or business of the head OF a famuy. Inis
coulJ has held that the place OF the
home of the family, as well as the place OF
business of the head of the family, in a
CITY, town or village, although not
unon contiguous lots, was protecteu
from forced sale so long as used
| for the rpo contemplated by the CON
stitution; MILLER VS.. Mark, Galveston term'
lSS0,)
The constitution recognizes that to estab'
lish and preserve a homestead in a city,
town or village, the property must be USED
for the purposes OF q home, or as a place TO
exercise the calling or business OF the head
of n family :" and 1t also recognizes that
any temporary renting of the homestead
shall not change the character OF the same,
when no other homestead has been ac'
quired rrb;oh
ia senarate and distinct from the home, as q
mart OF the homestead, two things mus
concur. LIST. The head of a family mus
have a calling or business 10 whlcn the
nronertv is adapted and reasonably neces-
sarv. "a. such property must be used as a
place TO exercise the calling or business oil
the head of the family,
The words calling" or business are
evidently used in the constitution IN u
very broad sense, when taken together,
bni the Specification OF each
one Is uncertain; yet we are 10 infer tina
they we're not used 10 designate the same
thing.
Taken together they certainly embraces
every legitimate avocaiion IN lie, by whlch
an honest support for a family may be OBJ
tanned.
sense of profession" or trade which
would embrace all such em~ployments as by
course of study or apprenticeship in any ol
The learned professions, literal arts, or me,
chanicai occupations a person has acquired
skill or ability TO follow, aud which has be
come practically a matter OF personal skill
in its nature and temporary IN existence
The latter word was probably used II
contradistinction TO the other, TO denote
that which Mr.. Webster defines TO be th'
GENERAL meaning Of the word, "tnat which
oocupies the time, attention and labor o
men for the purpose Of profit or improve
ment.n and this may be temporary.
me defendant, Latimer, might not b.
embraced in the first, but would be EN-
braced in the latter.
The calling" may exist as a lac
whether il be practiced or net with thu
other the actual employment in the givef
oocupauon furBis Is the only means 70 De
termiDe whether the business exists or no
with the one as well as viii the other
the use OF the property In the calling o
business of the claimant is essential 70 pre-
serve the exemption after a bumeleh
designation has been made.
Al the time the property now In question
was sold. Latimer was not pursu
| mo the business of a merchant, Z
which the house and lot were adapted an
necessarv. but ID seems was clerking 70
other persons. and the fact that his bus
, ress NAV have been that Of a merchant q
| a former period cannot sfiect the question
which IA. what was his business NJ The tim
Nor can the fact that be contemplated,
he ever became able 10 do 20. 10 reslme th
. business Of a merchant. E1ve 20 him tba
characfer If tdid not exist IN fhct-
THE Law no more pr tectsa man 10 . plac
todo bnriness which be is not DONG. and %
: making any immediate preparation 20 o.
I, Than II protects TO q man z place iof
bane ~fiob l. not in fact home OF IN reI
erruce 10 which no sfeus have been take
70 make il q hons for The tAmhy
The law protects the place Of bushes
|, recanue II = the place Of business, Nhie
csnnot he unless the head a The family J
oc-nuied in a business 10 which TIE prop
!, ertv q adapted and reasonably neceaafy
! We conclude under the facts q this crs
fhsf the defendaut Latimer, do not hsF
any business 81 the time TIE sa.e N 4n-.
fion m this caurs vns made vhicn MS
, fhe sfore-hnuse and los necessary 81 PROVE
. ~ tbe errrias a. such bushes.
II mafters uos Whist the callinf ~ bus
nsrs al man may Be. and as re hale =
f1-e aid. q caiif r or business - one ~ IN
~rs.purisls 70 enflfle q pers1n 70 ~ -
emrfo7 rIncs for re e1errlse, n ~ 60 -
Ne the property fr ~ pnrpnee - Snlc
49, ~. frIIu-r - - rss he property a.
~--~1t f-rw fnsnrIE. enbErAfsuert 90
st sl,z tss ..,st ~ So r.