Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Law-Of-Real-Property/Homestead-how-Lost-Abandonment.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:01:29+00:00

Document:
17 South. 629. The removal must be voluntary, to constitute abandonment. So leaving the home for fear of Indian hostilities would not authorize the husband, before returning, to execute a mortgage without the wife joining. Moss v. Warner, 10 Cal. 296. Mere intention to abandon does not terminate the exemption. Dawley v. Ayers, 123 Cal. 108.
331 Fyffe v. Bsers, 18 Iowa, 7; Dunton v. Woodbury, 24 Iowa, 74; Cabeen v. Mulligan, 37 111. 230; William Deering & Co. v. Beard, 48 Kan. 16, 28 Pac. 981.
49 111. 391; Myers v. Ford, 22 Wis. 139; Eckman v. Scott, 34 Neb. 817, 52 N. W. 822. But see In re Phelan's Estate, 16 Wis. 76; Fisher v. Cornell, 70 111. 216; Davis v. Andrews, 30 Vt. 678; Warren v. Peterson, 32 Neb. 727, 49 N. W. 703; Wynne v. Hudson, 66 Tex. 1, 17 S. W. 110; Malone v. Kornrumpf, 84 Tex. 454, 19 S. W. 607.
333 Woodbury v. Luddy, 14 Allen (Mass.) 1; Cahill v. Wilson, 62 111. 137; Carr v. Rising, Id. 14; Drury v. Bachelder, 11 Gray (Mass.) 214; Blackburn v. Traffic Co., 90 Wis. 362, 63 N. W. 289; Wood v. Hawkins, 60 Ark. 262, 29 S. W. 892. Cf. Davis v. Kelley, 14 Iowa, 523; Brewer v. Wall, 23 Tex. 585; Titman v. Moore, 43 111. 169. But see Ross v. Porter, 72 Miss. 361, 16 South. 906; Mcmillan v. Warner, 38 Tex. 410.
334 Dulanty v. Pynchon, 6 Allen (Mass.) 510; Doyle v. Coburn, Id. 71; Locke v. Rowell, 47 N. H. 4G; Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 533; Jarvals v. Moe. 38 Wis. 445; Faivre v. Daley, 93 Cal. 6G4, 29 Pac. 25G.
335 Hoitt v. Webb, 3G N. H. 158; Stanley v. Greenwood, 24 Tex. 224; Philleo v. Smalley, 23 Tex. 499; Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 154 (Gil. 124); Tillotson v. Millard, 7 Minn. 513 (Gil. 419); Grosholz v. Newman, 21 Wall. 48L A man can have only one homestead. Wright v. Dunning, 46 111. 271. In Texas there may be an exemption of a "business homestead," also. Leavell v. Lapowskl, 85 Tex. 168, 19 S. W. 1004; Webb v. Hayner, 49 Fed. 601, 605. But see Houston v. Newsome, 82 Tex. 75, 17 S. W. 603.
336 Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 154 (Gil. 124); Phelps v. Rooney, 9 Wis. 70; Orr v. Shraft, 22 Mich. 260; Palmer v. Hawes, 80 Wis. 474, 50 N. W. 341; In re Ogburn's Estate, 105 Cal. 95, 38 Pac. 498; Groneweg v. Beck (Iowa) 62 N. W. 31. But see Rhodes v. Mccormack, 4 Iowa, 368; Garrett v. Jones, 90 Ala. 96, 10 South. 702.
337 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 113; Casselman v. Packard, 16 Wis. 114; Mcdonald v. Clark (Tex. Sup.) 19 S. W. 1023. Cf. Martin Clothing Co. v. Henly, 83 Tex. 592, 19 S. W. 167. But see Milford Sav. Bank v. Ayers, 48 Kan. 602, 29 Pac. 1149; Layson v. Grange, 48 Kan. 440, 29 Pac. 585; Burgher v. Henderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 522.
338 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 384; Beecher v. Baldy, 7 Mich. 488; Hutch-ings v. Huggins, 59 111. 29; Ayers v. Hawks, 1 111. App. 600; Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183; Moore v. Reaves, 15 Kan. 150; Webster v. Trust Co., 93 Ga. 278, 20 S. E. 310. The proceeds of sale aie not exempt Mour-sund v. Prless, 84 Tex. 554, 19 S. W. 775.
339 so Ayers v. Hawks, 1 111. App. 600; Beavan v. Speed, 74 N. C. 544; Beech-544. Baldy, 7 Mich. 488.
340 Thomp. Homest. & Exeinp. 352; Cox v. Wilder, 2 Dill. 45, Fed. Cas. No. 3,308; Sears v. Hanks, 14 Ohio St. 298; Castie v. Palmer, 6 Allen (Mass.) 401; Smith v. Rumsey, 33 Mich. 183; Murphy v. Crouch, 24 Wis. 305; Mul-ler v. Inderreiden, 79 111. 382.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.