Case Name: INVESTORS' MORTGAGE SECURITY CO., Limited, v. NEWTON et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-05-14
Citations: 211 S.W. 971
Docket Number: No. 2945
Parties: INVESTORS’ MORTGAGE SECURITY CO., Limited, v. NEWTON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 211
Pages: 971–972

Head Matter:
(109 Tex. 478)
INVESTORS’ MORTGAGE SECURITY CO., Limited, v. NEWTON et al.
(No. 2945.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
May 14, 1919.)
Homestead <&wkey;141(l), 142(1) — Liabilities Eneoeceable— Liabilities Existing Be-EOEE MAEEIAGE.
Where an insolvent decedent gave a note and mortgage upon Ms land when single, subsequently married, made the land his homestead, and after abandoning it gave, without his wife’s jonider, a new note and trust deed, and some time later re-established such homestead, the mortgage lion is superior to the . homestead exemption rights of the widow and children in the land.
Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.
Suit by the Investors’ Mortgage Security Company, Limited, against Mrs. L. L. Newton and others. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (184 S. W. 291), affirming a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded to district court, with directions.
M. D. Gano, Coke & Coke, and W. N. Coombs, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
N. G. Turney, M. G. Owen, E. El Hurt, and R. L. Hurt, all of Dallas, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, C. J.
The suit was one by the plaintiff in error in the District Court against the surviving widow and children of E. E. Newton, deceased, to establish an indebtedness and lien upon certain land in Dallas County constituting Newton's homestead at the time of his death, the claim having been previously presented for allowance to his administratrix and having been refused by her.
The original note and lien were given by Newton when he was a single man. More than a year afterwards he married. Later, he made the land his homestead, but subsequently abandoned it and moved to Oklahoma where he established the residence of himself and family. While living in Oklahoma, Newton applied -to the plaintiff in error for the purpose of having it take up the loan and lien, which it did. It thereby became subrogated to the lien. The original note was by it renewed and extended at Newton's request, a new note being taken for the amount of the original principal, the accrued interest and the expense incurred in the transaction, and a new deed of trust being executed, the wife not joining in either the new note or the deed of trust. Newton still resided with his family in Oklahoma when the transaction was closed, and there was then no homestead right in the land. After this, Newton returned to Texas with his family, occupying the land as Ms homestead. His estate proved insolvent.
The case differs in no essential respect from that of Hedeman v. Newnom, 109 Tex. -, 211 S. W. 968, this day decided. It is accordingly ruled by that decision to which we refer.
The judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and District Court are reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with the direction that the claim be established as a valid and superior lien upon the land.
«gsaFor other cases see same topic and KEY- NDMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes