Herald and tribune. [volume] (Jonesborough, Tenn.) 1869-current, 1883-10-11
Iersla aud Tribnne.
THURSDAY OCTOBER, II, 1883
The Homestead Law.

The Homestead Law.
Judge Caldwell, of the Referee
Court, recently delivered an eloquent
and able opinion on the Homestead
Law, in the case Of w. b. Stokes Va
lsa w. King, from which we make
the following extract:
From the very Inherent reason
and object of tho general homestead
llw, the section of the code under
consideration must be strictly o II
slrued. The sheriff must sell the
land for cash; he must pay the sum
Of $1,000 Of the proceeds to the
clerk, and the clerk must invest the
same ina new homestead before the
purchaser can in any way force the
debtor to surrender the Old one.
When the law forces his family to
take their last farewell of the old
homestead, its compromising finger
must point them to u new one.
When the right to one ends the
IiSht 70 the ether begins. This con-
tttutional right must be preserved
i~nyiO!atC from the time it vests n
I'll there ceases to be u family for It
to protect. 1t may be transferred
from one piece of property to anoth-
crlh q mode prescribed by statute
huG the procedure by which the
transaction is made must be so
hedged 10y safeguards as to prevent
It's impairment or suspension. ANY
other construction OF the statutory
provisions would make it obnoxious
to the constitution aud, therefore, n
n0ltity.
IL will not do to hold that the
creditor may make his own terms
with the sheriff, nor is it an answer
TO the claim Of the unfortunate
debtor that the money has been
paid to the sheriff. Moro than this
Is required. He may have CONVEX.
ted the money, or absconded witt,
1t, and his bond may 10 insolvcnt.
1t is not sufficient that the money
Las reached the hands of the clerk.
lie may likewise have appropriated
1t to his own Use and his bOndSmau
may not he good for the amount.
Or, suppose the SuritieS good me ,ch
case, and their ultimate liability and
final recovery for the $1,000, with
interest, certain, sill the full re.
]qlitcmauts Of the statute are not
met. The claimant cannot DO nut
ell with his Tight of action against
the dcIauIting sheriff or clerk, he
ing deprived of Il home pending the
litigation. 70 he sure the courts
will not ordinarily or ever presume
that officers will not faithfully dis.
charge their duty; but where tights
ale predict on their OTIS those
acts must appear to have been in
, conformity to law.
IBIS Is particularly true where
'thc lnideIlly Of the officer may an,
nthilate u right SO sacred as the
homestead exemption.
Then, was the Homestead of de-
i3ndant stokes sold as required b.
the statute! In the first instance
no money Wls paid to the sheriff.
anL he paid none to the clerk. Some
four months after the sale The pur.
CHASER executed his note t othc plain
III IN the execution for the amount
OF his 0ld, and the satisfaction was
entered on the docket, and an ems
doISemcnt OF the fact of payment
pun on the ii ia. As between tue
judgement creditor and the pur.
Z chaser this arrangement was suf-
liclent; Az bctwcfn the purchaser
and the deGtor 1t was not so. The
whole proceeds of the sale were ap-
He'd in exit ,gu Shment of the
judgment nothing was reserved and
paid the clerk for tho benefit of the
DEBTOR. No fund was set apart aud
held to represent tie homestead of
defendant. The clerk, himself, was
tho Tiaiutiii in the execution. The
notes Of the purchaser satisfied the
debt. No money was actually han
died.
,.,e says in his evidence. 'plaintif
Ning never paid me any one thouS
anG dollar or any other amount,
TO he Invested III homestead for
VIM Is. Stokes, etc
The truth is his homestead right
vas utterly ignored by the officers Of