Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/The-homestead-exemption-Part-4.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:58:12+00:00

Document:
Debts to which the exemption extends. The existence of the homestead exemption has the effect, generally, of relieving the property from liability for the debts of the owner, but the statute frequently makes exceptions in favor of certain classes of creditors. The statute in almost all the states provides in express terms that the exemption of the land from liability for debts shall not extend to a debt to the vendor for the purchase price,9 and, apart from any such express provision, the v. White, 69 Miss. 352, 30 Am. St. Rep. 557, 13 So. 349; Giles v. Miller, 36 Neb. 346, 38 Am. St. Rep. 730, 54 N. W. 551; Clements v. Lacy, 51 Tex. 150; McClary v. Bixby, 36 Vt. 354, 84 Am. Dec. 684.
6. Wolf v. Fleischacker, 5 Cal. 244, 63 Am. Dec. 121; Ventress v. Collins, 38 La. Ann. 783; Thurston v. Maddocks, 6 Allen (Mass.) 427; Holmes v. Winchester, 138 Mass. 542; J. I. Case Co. v. Joyce, 89 Tenn. 337, 12 L. R. A. 519, 16 S. W. 147; West v. Ward, 26 Wis. 579.
Iowa, 58, 23 N. W. 263; Michigan Trust Co. v. Chapin, 106 Mich. 384, 58 Am. St. Rep. 490, 64 N. W. 334; Terry v. Berry, 13 Nev. 514; Ex parte Karish, 32 S. C. 437, 17 Am. St. Rep. 865, 11 S. E. 298; Brady v. Kreuger, 8 S. D. 464, 59 Am. St. Rep. 771, 66 N. W. 1083; Chalfant v. Grant, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 118; Short v. McGruder (C. C.) 22 Fed. 46.
Mont. 487, 40 Am. St. Rep. 459, 34 Pac. 1020; McMillan v. Williams, 109 N. C. 252, 13 S. E. 764; Swearingen v. Bassett, 65 Tex. 267.
9. Waples, Homestead, c. 11.
10. Eyster v. Hatheway, 50 III. 521, 99 Am. Dec. 537; Dreese v. Myers, 52 Kan. 126, 39 Am. St. Rep. 336; 34 Pac. 349; Perry v. Ross, 104 Cal. 15, 43 Am. St. Rep. 66, 37 Pac. 757; Loftis v. Loftis, 94 Tenn. 232. See Nottes' Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 361.
11. Acruman v. Barnes, 66 Ark. 442, 74 Am. St. Rep. 104, 51 S. W. 319; White v. Wheelan, 71 Ga. 533; Warhmund v. Merritt, 60 Tex. 24; Nichols v. Overacker. 16 Kan. 54; Carey v. Boyle, 53 Wis. 574, 11 N. W. 47 If the loan and the purchase can all be considered one transaction, then the lender is, it seems, entitled to stand in the position of the vendor. Austin v. Underwood.
37 III. 438, 87 Am. Dec. 254; Dreese v. Myers, 52 Kan. 126, 39 Am. St. Rep. 336, 34 Pac. 349.
12. See Lewton v. Hower, 18 Fla. 872: McWilliams v. Bones, 84 Ga. 203; Hurd v. Hixon, 27 Kan. 722; All v. Goodson, 33 S. C. 229, 11 S. E. 703; Miller v. Brown, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 155; Butler v. Davis, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 273, 23 S. W. 220.
13. Higgins v. Bordages, 88 Tex. 458; Douthett v. Winter, 108 III. 330; Lamar v. Sheppard, 80 Ga. 25, 5 S. E. 247; Shell v. Duncan, 31 S. C. 547, 5 L. R. A. 821, 10 S. E. 330; Waples, Homo-stead, 327.
Asylum v. Craven, 98 Ky. 105, 56 Am. St. Rep. 323, 32 S. W. 291; Fink v. O'Neil, 106 U. S. 272, 27 L. Ed. 196; Colquitt v. Brown, 63 Ga. 440; Ren v. Driskell, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 642; State v. Pitts, 51 Mo. 133. Accordingly, the homestead has been held to be exempt from sale under execution to satisfy a fine or judgment for costs in a criminal prosecution. Com. v. Lay, 12 Bush (Ky.) 283, 23 Am. Rep. 718; Fink v. O'Neil, 106 U. S. 272, 27 L. Ed. 196; Hollis v. State, 59 Ark. 211, 43 Am. St. Rep. 28, 27 S. W. 73; Loomis v. Gerson, 62 III. 11.
15. Whitacre v. Rector, 29 Grat. (Va.) 714, 26 Am. Rep. 420; Nowling v. Mcintosh, 89 Ind. 593; Burton v. Mill, 78 Va. 468; Lathrop v. Singer, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 396; McLaren v. Anderson, 81 Ala. 106; Davis v. Hen-son, 29 Ga. 345.
16. Waples, Homestead. 282 et seq.
17. Zander v. Scott, 165 III. 51, 46 N. E. 2; Bullene v. Hiatt, 12 Kan. 98; Robinson v. Wilson, 15 Kan. 595, 22 Am. Rep. 272; Meador v. Meador, 88 Ky. 217. 10 S. W. 651; Davis Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Whitney, 61 Mich. 518, 28 N. W. 674; Bunn v. Lindsay, 95 Mo. 250, 6 Am. St. Rep. 48. 7 S. W. 473; Pender v. Lancaster, 14 S. C. 25, 37 Am. Rep. 720; Dye v. Cook, 88 Tenn. 275, 17 Am. St. Rep. 882, 12 S. W. 631; Clements v. Lacy, 51 Tex. 150. So in the case of mortgage liens. Webster v. Dundee Mortgage & Trust Co., 93 Ga. 278, 20 S. E. 310; McCormick v. Wilcox, 25 III. 274; Gibson v. Mundell, 29 Ohio St. 523; Mabry v. Harrison, 44 Tex. 286; Spanieling v. Crane, 46 Vt. 292.

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.