Case Name: Salluste Marcotte vs. W. R. Messick, Shff., et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 42
Docket Number: No. 6563
Parties: Salluste Marcotte vs. W. R. Messick, Shff., et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Unreported cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, from January 8, 1877, to April, 1880
Volume: 1
Pages: 42–43

Head Matter:
No. 6563.
Salluste Marcotte vs. W. R. Messick, Shff., et al.
A surviving husband is entitled to the benefit of homestead in a tract of land which belongs to the community between himself and his deceased wife, if ail the conditions as to value, residence, dependent family, etc., exist.
Appeal from the District Court for Avoyelles. Hewes, J.
Waddill & Joffrion for Plaintiff. Frith for Defendant Appellant.
S. Friedlander had execution issued on a judgment obtained by him against Salluste Marcotte, under which was seized a tract of land of forty-six acres, with dwelling, etc., upon it, in which Marcotte lived with his minor child and aged mother, who were dependent on him for support. The value was under two thousand dollars. The property belonged to the community between Marcotte and his deceased wife. Marcotte enjoined the sale claiming his right of homestead, and had judgment, from which the seizing creditor appealed.
After stating the case,

Opinion:
Marr, J.
Counsel for appellant maintains that as the property in controversy belonged to the community, it can not be the homestead of the husband, and he cites in support of this Henderson v. Hoy, 26 Ann. 156.
Henderson was one of six heirs, and his judgment creditor seized his interest in the succession of his deceased father, an undivided sixth. This was merely an incorporeal right. In this case the thing seized is a tract of land. The fact that it belonged to the community does not affect the right of homestead. The surviving husband has the usufruct during his natural life or until his second marriage, of the share of the community inherited by his minor child. It may never be necessary to have a division in kind of the property, and if it should become necessary, nothing in the record authorizes the presumption that the property is not susceptible of division in kind. The homestead or family residence might fall to the husband in the partition.
Judgment affirmed.