The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1893-02-16
Cavett, who is the present owner
and pOssessor thereof.


The judgment ohfaiupd by the
plaintiff against w. A. kpIar was
based upon the autecrdeuf indebt-
edness, of several years standing
prior TO said homestead entry, by
said KeIIar 10 the plaintiff.
The plaintiff contends that the
sale Of the land by Mcclellan had
the effect in law to make the land
liable to the payment Of his judicial
mortgage in the hands of the third
purchaser, Cavett.
The defendant, on the contrary,
contends that under section 229G of
the Revised Statutes of the United
States the land was perpetually re-
Iieved from any liability to pay any
debt of Kellar antecedeut to the
date of the entry.
The section referred TO is in the
following words: mo lands ac-
quired under the provisions of this
chapter shall in any event become
liable to the satisfaction of any debt
contracted prior to the issuing of
the patent therefor"
The question presented to US then
is, did the sale by Kellar, the paten-
zee under the section quoted, have
the effect TO render the land liable,
in the possession Of those claiming
under him, for the payment of this
antecedent Indebtedness of his to
the plaintiff?
IT this was an absolutely original
question, without any judicial inter
probation whatsoever of the section
referred to, we should not hesitate to
interpret it ourselves as meaning
that in no event the land should
ever become liable for such antece-
dent Indebtedness, whether il should
continue to be owned and possessed
by the original patentee or by his
vendees. The terms of the statute
are sufficiently comprehensive and
explicit, not only to justify this in
depreciation, but indeed to force it.
The language is sweeping: "NO
lands shall in any event." not be
liable, but "become liable" If the
language of the statute had been
''be Gable' it might possibly be con-
tended that the limitation was to
the liability of the land in the own
ership and possession of the pat
entee. But when the statute lie
clares that the land shall not sin
any event become liable to such in.
debtedness, we think the clear mean
ing of the law is that no act Of the
patentee, either by sale or otherwise
can make it so except he voluntarily
subjects it to such paymeD'. itcau
in no event become 81 !Iaoie hy ope
ration of law.
There have been no adjadicatlons
upon this statute by the Courts o
this State. We have been referred
howevea, to an authority which il
entitled to great weight, and whlcf
is decisive of the question at issue
if the authority is 10 be relied upon
The authority is omythe on "ilome
steadS and Exemptions" IulS an
thority refers to the decisions OF th
State courts of California and Ore
gon, in which it has been held tha
, the sale of lands acquired under til
statue referred to TO another perso
does not destroy its exemption frol
execution aud sale for debt col
| tracted by the pateutee prior to th
, issuing of the patent. The groun
upon which this author and thes
decisions base their opinion is thf
. under the Federal Constitution OOI
, gress has the exclusive power
J dispose of the public lands in sue
/, manner and on such terms and col
A ditions, and subject to such restrl
| tions and limitations as in the
Judgment will best promote the puI
/. lie welfare.