Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-05-10
IN THE HIGHER COURTS,


SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
John r. swayne vs. Il. i. and V. a.
| Chaae-Wrlt OF error % The Second
| district: Chase and wife owned ana
occupied a homestead IN Fort Worm
which was their rcsldence and Whleh
they insured for 10000. The properly
was destroyed by fire. Chase was m
debted to Swayne IN the sum OF S--'VyV'
upon which judgment mad been oD.
tanned. and swayne sued OUT a VIII
OF garnshment against the insurance
company. The company admitted the
debt TO Chase upon the policy, ana
stated that II was for insurance on
homestead. Chase and wife interviewed
claiming that the Money due was eN-
empt because It was proceeds OF
policy upon their homestead Swayne
pleaded that Chase, being Indebted IN
the sum OF $4,000 and being lnsolyent,
and IN contemplation OF insolvency
with the Intent 10 dofraud his credit
ors, and especially plaintiff. Invested
In the improvements upon his home
stead the sum OF $4,000 with the pur-
pose OF withdrawing and abstractlng
from his assets an unnecessary and IN
reasonable amount, thereby placing the
same beyond the reach OF his creditors,
especially the plaintiff; that he had In
surnnce thereon In the sum Of 100000,
and that after paying plaintiffs debt
there would remain $4,000. sum
more than sufficient 10 erect a dwelling
In the place OF the one destroyed, the
sum OF $1,000 being alleged 20 be rea-
sonable amount for that purpose. The
trial court sustained "A demurrer to
this pleading and gave judgment for
Chase and wife. The court OF civil
appeals reversed the Judgment and
held that an Insurance money over and
above a reasonable sum FOR rebuilding
the rcsldeace should be subjected to
the debts
l. Was the investment made In the
house for which Insurance "a claimed
deprived OF the exemption under the
constitution by the alleged fraud OF
Chaser This question Is definitely set
tod against tho construction OF Swayne
by the case OF North vs. Shcarn rs
Tex, l75). That case was stronger IN
favor OF the creditor than this. az the
debt was contracted for material with
which the Improvements were made,
ana when sold 90 defendant he was
single. In this case 1t So not claimed
that the money Invested by Chase WAS
acquired from swnyue or that u was
acquired from any ono IN such manner
as o. ahow that IL was the Intent at
the time to put II beyond the reach OF
creditors Chase was at the time a
man, ana an who dealt with
him must take notice ~ the law az
exemptions. While u o. true that the
49, "a, 49,. 'n ',u 49, ~
,,g mi, - ''.l
',.,,'.,,,.',,,.. ,,,,t.s ,... ......t,,.i ~
.,,, ,i,s 49, 81 ~ ''i ''gH 20 ~.
- ,g, ,'r.,,iit, 'u h 4o'7 NO. rot
,.s. g ,'lt ~, -, r,.,.,. az az
rsy IA M. t''.. -, W",, ~
',pgi vas ''7"'''"s
. Ut lhe property was tNincpl ls the
nsHI dhle money derived from the poll
y VII. Con i'.g"lse exempt under the
''Hl'tuiA'u. rms question has been
l.nlIti lh cameron Vs. Ihy W5 Tex,
~ where u was holi thut tho money
lAr FROM an insurance complny upon
I'i,E IraAe4 upon a homestead ia
'.l HNulral 10 EIfnlHhmcut at the suit
,, ,l.Nlor' 4hat decision ls NlE1r-
.,., a,''.Noi ul,l stNeIriy cnlielsed'
'ut WhHteFtF may De SAID or IT, an
NAulln9lIou or the authorities Will
NOW that II l1 absolutely supported
by lhr decisions or tho ublp7t courts
q the union, and opposed by but few,
NN case OF Monica Vs. Insurance COM
my " Brad alOl was upOn stat
lle or lulnulH which In terms excluded !
rom exemption debts duo from cor
' ,'',..', nc ease OF wooster w.
. a.. s,. 81 f' t.ff "NH ''N'l.h we
'nionn CO.. Miss $50, are directly OPP
'used TO the majority OF the courts,
Q, Can the court limit the amount OF
he Insurance money to which Chase
md wife arc entitled ap being exempt
20 what may be considered ID reapon-
ihlo sum tn be invested In another rce-
leuce2 This IA the main Upstlon In
HE case. II ~ urged Thai Inc oyemn.
Ion OF tho money does not arise ont
1r the constitution, hut rests unop Inc
leglgIou in Cameron yg. Fnv isupraN
n which an equitable conatruetlon ng
{ ~ called, was placed Ip,n Tho con-
'ututon. thereby creating nm cxrpnn-
Ion which aha not arise am ~ a.,
unKuugc II this We're correct NM
'pre ehaut he ovorruled THO nr,t"e
ion claimed for insurance monev t,,,,,,,
! homestead does not lan,nJ ,,,.,,, t,a
,Rse IN Cameron W. Fnv mi Wr,,, w..
constitution. mo monpin,. n,J tn, wy,
u which tho court TIA mai ,as, t,,' w.
aseortairc5 g. t,,a,, 'H'u
proceeds OF uch nolioios N.Y. NY
" civil nppeais roilo,r,d ma v"ult
lar az TO hold tbnt NO., NS 20
,Nompt portion Of thc ,r6 ",,Uu'u ot
b, a rengonabio ann, ,,.t,, '"ut
build u rrsldouee for ma fn,rii,. We
.hia Limitation tho onurt III, '
raut In Cameron va No. l,ii"s MAJ
said that the money yyouib be -
.octod from Rppronrinttnr tN ~ NV,
" debts by iudieIai nra,',.' guy mont
ionRhlu time, imam M 49,, - tvu
i is sought to atistnIn tbnt rmit s''unI
This court Ia nslfcb ~, ,y",,hs,3and
npnov ovor ,ra - w "Vlu AhAt thc