The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-01-14
NEW POINT IN LAW
Is ChiIdleSS Whoever Same
as Single Man?
EXEMPTION RIGHT IN ISSUE
Case in Appellate Court From
Lyon County,
EXEMPTION RIGHT IN ISSUE

Judges Dennison and Schoonover, Of the
appellate court, were relieved of d. great
deal Of work yesterday by the leniency Of
the lawyers connected with the cases as
signed for the day. Only one or two cases
were orally argued before the court and
the others were either submitted on briefs
or hurriedly disposed by stipulations of
the parties interested, so that the court
adjourned at noon for the day. The judges
and lawyers enjoyed the balance Of the
day by driving over the city and other
wise viewing the sights Of the metropolis
of Southern Kansas.
The homestead law Of Kansas has gen
orally been considered a very plain and
acceptable law, but there is case before
this court that relates to features Of the
law that have never yet Deen pass ii upon
by any of the courts of the state. 1t Is
the case Of A ElHnger & Co. ct al VS.. NJ
Thomas. appealed from the district court
of Lyon county Mr.. Thomas is a man
over 20 years old and a widower, living
with his son and wife. The plaintiffs n
G. ror were credit tors of Thomas before his
wife dled, aud the defendant is conteSting
his right to the homestead, which is in
volved by reason Of the debts against him.
The question involved in the case is
whether childless widower is entitled to
homestead exemption under the home
stead provision of the constitution Of this
state The homestead constitutional pro-
vision is that the homestead must be oc-
cupied by the family Of the owner. the
question in this case is where party con-
tracts debts or has judgments against
him and IS at that time the owner Of 16O
acres Of land, or one acre in an incorpor-
ated city, occupying the same with his
family, and afterwards his family marries
and leaves him and the wife dies, can he
Still hold such homestead exempt from the
judgments or debts contracted while the
family was still occupying the homestead
with the owner, or does it place him in a
position of that of a single man? It shows
In this case that the right of exemption as
q homesteader was acquired, and by no
voluntary act of the owner did he lose
such right, but was deprived Of his fam
fly by the natural force of life and the act
Of God. This is very important question
and the attorneys are very anxious to
learn Of the opinion Of the final courts
with regard to it. The case was ably
argued by 3. w. Jaquith for the plaintiff
In error and J. Harvey Smith for defend
ant, and was submitted on briefs filed
with the court.
Other cases assigned for the day were
disposed OF as follows:
H. Henry Powers ct al. VS.. John Moore
ct al, appealed from Reno county; dismiss
ed for failure to file briefs.
Moses Gun VS. Jno. H. Richert. appealed
from Summer county; continued to May
term
w. "A Shannon VS.. W. F. Benson, ep-
pealed from Butter county; judgment Of
lower court affirmed according to stipu-
iations OF both parties.
Amelia Wegner ct al vS. Atchison, To-
peka and Santa Fe Railroad, appealed
from Sumner county; motion by defend
ant IN error to dismiss petition in error;
continued to May term.
o. Mills ct al va. Benz. F. Talbot, ap-
pealed from Barber county; continued to
May term.
Jacob II. Davis VS.. w. S. Benson, coun-
ty treasurer, etc; appealed from Butler
county QecsSlOn or lower court affirmed
according 10 stipulations of both parties
10 suit.
Mary z. Davis VS.. W. F. Benson. coun-
" treasurer, etc, appealed from Butler
county; decision of lower court affirmed
according to stiDulations of both parties.
]. W. Skinner, sheriff. etc, vs.. c. II.
Sedgbeer, appealed from Cowley county;
submitted on briefs.
AtchisOn. Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad
Co. vs J. r. Ash, appealed from Sumner
county; continued to May term
y. L. Musselman vs.. Montague Jacks.
appealed from Sedgwick county; dismiss
ed for failure TO file briefs.
The Symns Grocer Co vs.. NJ. D. Lee ct
al. appealed from Harper county: orally
argued by Mr.. Jackson for plaintiffs n
error and Mr.. Roberts for defendants;
submitted on briefs.
c. n. Day vs.. VI. T. Bullion. appealed
from Greenwood county; dismissed tnr
failure TO file briefs
Patrick Martin VS.. Josephine T. Docr-
erty, appealed from Reno county: dismiss
ed for failure 10 file briefs