The Savannah morning news., 1903-12-04

apply to the principles governing the
ttppllcatlon. 1t is necessary therefore
10 consider and construe the statute
applicable to the granting of home
steads.
we appreciate the dangers of this
step, OF making a law by the construc-
tlon OF statute judicially, but we do
so more freely approaching that this
Is not the last court of resort.
The homestead law was made for
the purposes of relieving, from merci-
less and VindictiVe creditors, that class
OF citizens, who come within the re-
quirements enumerated in the statute,
To protect from their creditors, and to
procure sufficient amount. to enable
those financially unfortunate, to care
for the beneficiaries under the home
stead, and prevent their becoming des-
titute, and a charge upon the COM
munity, in which they live. This prin-
ciple is pronounced in Marsh ct al
against Lazanby Forty-first Georgia,
1853.
The law has made an ample provis-
ion by the act of 1868, and those amend
ments subsequently, passed to remedy
the evil existing prior to the passage
of the act. The law was never in
tended to procure to debtors a COM
Portable competency for the purpose of
defeating honest and worthy creditors,
nor for the protection of debters with
no one dependant upon them.
THE policy of the statute has been
construed by the Supreme Court of
the state, in the case of the City Bank
of Macon against Smisson ct al, in Sew
enty-third Georgia, 424 the learned chief,
Justice jackson constituting the home
stead act says: the policy of the state
is to increase. not to diminish her
population. The policy of her consti-
tutional provision to secure homes for
her people, is to settle them in per-
mannent homes within her limits
THE policy of being thus expressed
appears to this court, that if the fam
lily or beneficiaries removed beyond the
limits of this state. that the purpose
and object of the act would cease; GER
tainly this would be true If the APP
plicant removed as the Supreme Court
has more than one decided.
Conditions of HOmesteads.
IF the application is made by one
having a female dependant upon him,
the intimation of the court is that the
female must be so dependent as to be
not only dependant for care ana sup
port. but d member of his household,
see Forty-first Georgia, 154; Fifty
sixth Georgia, 300. 1 can find no case
where it is contemplated that home
stead estate is presumed to be sum-
GENTLY productive as to PROVIDE Two
homes for the benefciaries. l admit
that the case of Sigmund against Aus
tin in One Hundred and Twelfth Geor-
gia, 572, would appear to the contrary,
but upon examination 1T will be round
that that homestead had been granted
fQrr "
a wife and minor children, and the re-
moyal of one of the minors from the
homestead does not effect the princl-
nles laid down above, as it does not
intimate i'll that decision that the
minor who is somewheres in Georgia
is dependent on the homestead, but
has simply suspended his rights.
''I am, therefore, of the opinion that
the law did not contemplate proVldlng
q home and support for NONRESIDENT
ont of the property in this state claim
cd NV a resident of this state, with
no one in this state dependent upon
her. If this applicant had no child In
her present condition, she would not
he entitled to a homestead And al
though the legal residence of the child,
under our statute, is Georgia, still, If
the mother, in this instance should de-
7 seriously doubt the ability or power
of the New York authorities to make
said child a charge upon the charity OF
This state and county, and | am of the
opinion that the applicant is not such
a head of a family nor person nav
ing a female dependent upon her, as
is contemplated by the homestead law
of this state, that would entltle her 10
a homestead.
ST therefore, sustain the caveat upon
tho grounds set out in its third para
graph.
tor os above. it Is unnecessary for
me to pass upon the other grounds set
ont in the caveat. l, therefore, will
not enter upon the question of the COM
nleteness or fatal defects in the sched-
ME and its amendments"