The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-21

an Wolfe VS.. Buckley the court
would not have reSorted to the fact
that there had been an exchange of
homesteads. if it had actually con-
sidered Mrs Buckley the head of a
family, for that of itself would have
exempted the property claimed as a
homestead from execution. But the
court did not rely upon the claim that
her step grandchildren, living with
her, constituted her the head of a
family, and evidently laid great stress
upon the fact that the place in con-
troversy was bought with the pro-
ceedS of former homestead. Itmay
be added, too, that if these children,
whose father was living and bound
Buckley the head of a family, there is
no reason why the appellee's own
grand children, whose father was
living, and who were residing with
her at her urban residence, Gas the
facts seem to indicate), should not
have constituted her the head of
family and given exemption to the
homestead, as in the case of Wolfe VS..
Buckley"
at may further be added that so
sin holds that money due a debtor
from the purchaser of his homestead
as part of the consideration therefor,
and which the debtor designs in good
faith to apply to the purchase of an
other homestead, are not liable to gar
nishment. Watkins VS.. Blatchnisky,
40 Wis, BAT. This was of course
voluntary exchange. The court, in
deciding the case, in referring to the
decisions from Vermont and other
New England states, dismissed them
with the remark that the courts of
those states generally hold to a strict
construction of the exemption laws,
whereas the Wisconsin courts have
uniformly construed them literally.
The Texas courts have usually adopt
ed the latter rule in their construction
of such cases; and in the case of Whit
tenburg VS.. Lloyd (supra) intimated
strongly in favor of the Wisconsin
doctrine"
"Mr. Thompson, too, in his work on
Homesteads, SOL, in commenting
upon the case, says: The restriction
Of the rule to involuntary sales of
exempt property has been denied in
Wisconsin as it respects the home
stead.' He explains the decision by
saying that in Wisconsin a debtor is
empowered by statute to sell and con-
vey his homestead without subjecting
it to the demands of creditors; that
this would be barren right ii the
proceeds Of the sale cannot be pro-
tected while in transition from one
homestead to another. He admits
that the view is calculated to promote
the object of the homestead laws; and
that it is applicable in states where a
Judgment lien does not attach to the
homestead so as to prevent the owner
and wife from alternating it. 1t is
needless to say that this rule obtains
in our own state. If the money in a
transition state is to be protected,
much stronger is the reason for pro-
tecting the homestead acquired by a
direct exchange"
For the purposes of this case it is
sufficient to say that under all the
facts to be found in the record, we
think the appellee's town homestead
was protected from the levy of the at
tachment sued out by appellant, and
the judgment below is affirmed. Will
lie, G. j.
The important case of Hanrich vs..
Cavanaugh, involving the character
of titles to a large amount of land
derived through old Spanish grants,
was argued during a great part of
the day and until late hour in the
evening, before Justice Stayton, pre-
siding, and special Judges B. H. Bas-
sett and n. W. Findlay. Elaborate
and able arguments were made by
Maj. Walton and Mr.. Gurley for ap-
pellant, and Judge Terrell and Mr..
Fisher for appellee, the court room
being crowded with large clientele
directly or indirectly interested in the
issues involved IN the case. Forgery
is alleged to the title to the land.
l.. A. Franks ct. al VS.. Caroline
Chapman ct. al, from Atascosa coun-
ty. Judgment reversed and case dis
missed. Stayton, A. j. Justice West
did not sit in this case.
Texas and Pacific railroad COM
pany VS.. Levi & Bro, from Dallas
county. Reversed and remanded.
Stayton, A. J.
international and Great Northern
railroad company VS.. county of An
derson. Motion for rehearing over
ruled. Willie, G. j.
Smith ct. al VS.. Howe, -. At
firhed on certificate.
R. H. West VS.. r. E. Jones, from
Dallas. Reversed and remanded.
j. r. Moore vs. S. r. Ingram, from
Hill county. Reversed and remain
ded.
P. Nowlin and wife VS.. A. Brad
shaw, from Ellis county. Affirm, d.
Smythe ct. al VS.. W. G. Veal, from
Limestone county. Affirmed.
Jones VS.. Lakewood, from Falls
county. Affirmed.
Parker county VS.. John H. Glass.
Reversed and remanded.
Nier VS.. Wilson county. Motion
for rehearing dismissed.
Mckee VS.. Dunn. Motion over
ruled and case dismissed.
Echols ct. al VS.. Mckee, executor.
Motion overruled.
Huff VS.. Clark. Motion dismissed,
not being filed in time.
THE. COURTS.