Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-03-14
THE HOMESTEAD LAW.


The following decision was rendered
in the Court of Appeals on Thursday:
Williams, etc, VS. Watkins, etc. From
the Circuit Court of Charlotte. Affirm
ed. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
The appellant recovered judgment
against appellee, September, 1892, for
5000. Execution issued forthwith. In
October appellant sued out garnish-
ment to subject bond for 81, 900, due ap-
pellee by O, secured by deed Of trust,
which was served on appellee, two
days later. Trustee advertised trust
subject for sale in February, 1898,
and appellant epjoined him from
selling TIL the further order of the
court. Injunction dissolved Septem-
Der, '93, bill dismissed, and appeal. In
January, '9S, appellee executed home
stead deed, setting aside, first, the
81 900 bond, except part thereof IS.
signed as collateral for another debt;
and, second, all his household and
kitchen furniture" In August, '93, he
executed another homestead deed, set
ting aside the same subjects, fully de-
scribing the 81 900 bond, and fixing a
value Of 500 on the furniture.
Held: l. tits unnecessary to decide
whether the general description, call
my household and kitchen furniture"
is sufficient compliance with the stat
ute. fit were not, the defect would
not invalidate the whole deed and de-
prive appellee of his entire homestead.
Upon we'll settled principles the deed
will be upheld to the extent that the
property selected as homestead is listed
therein in the mode prescribed by law.
In each deed the bond is fully describ-
ed as required by statute, and both are
good homestead deeds to the extent of
that debt.
The assignments of the bond as col
lateral in September, 1892, and in Feb
ruary, 1898, after the first homestead
deed had been made, appellant insists,
were made after full notice TO the as
signee of his lien. and that, therefore,
assignee took subject to his paramount
lien.
The contention is not sustained as to
the first deed, and is by no means clear
as to the second. La any event, the
right of the assignee to the amount due
under the assignment is not affected by
said lien, because at the time it was made
appellee had claimed the property as
signed as homestead, aud held it free
from appellants lien, and had the right
to pledge it as security to raise money.
go Graft, 43)
1t was appellee's homestead estate
that he assigned the second time. The
assignee was not concerned to know
what claims existed against appellee
prior TO the date of the homestead deed,
but only at that time in knowing that
the property pledged had been claimed
and was held as homestead exempt
from such claims.
Appellee bad right at any time to
paw the debt for which the bond was
assigned as collateral, and certainly
then he-bond would be his, and be
protected to him by his homestead
deed.
2. The general rule is that debtor
may (his wife concurring, where such
concurrence is required) sell his home
stead and deliver possession without
subjecting it to his general debts or to
any alien not made specific by valid
contract.
1t has long been settled in this State
that the homestead may be waived,
and thus made subject to debt, which
is but form of waivingit. 1t is equal
~ well settled that those claiming the
homestead may cucumber it by specific
lien, and thus subject it to sale AMI
alienation, completely divesting them
selves of the title to the homestead.
$50 Graft, supra
The starute-Virginia code, section
3649-clearly contemplates that even
in case Of real estate, and much more
in case of personality, the housebo der
may alien his homestead free from all
liens not paramount. The provision
was intended for the benefit of the
claimant and his family. Its use and
enjoyment, as we'll as considerations OF
public policy, require that there should
be unrestrained power of alienation in
those entitled to the exemption.