Court Opinion

ID: 9832428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:54:15.933936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.717594
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant in her motion for a rehearing earnestly contends that we erred in stating that the homestead without objection from the appellant was reduced to money.
In the first amended original answer of appellant we find the following language: “That these defendants desire the same to be partitioned, if it is possible tp do so, but that, if it is not capable of being partitioned, then the proper disposition of same is left to this court.” Also the following: “Now these defendants pray that, in the event the 43 acres of land described in plaintiff’s petition is incapable of partition, then they ask that the same be sold, and that one-half of the proceeds be set aside by the court to this defendant, Mrs. F. M. Hays.” In his findings, of fact the court states that the report of the commissioners who reported that they could not divide said land was approved with the concurrence of all the parties, also that the report of the special commissioner appointed to sell the land was approved with the concurrence of all parties. These findings have not been attacked. The only question upon which error was assigned was the distribution of the proceeds, so we feel that the statement made in the' opinion in this case, to the effect that the land was sold without objection, is amply sustained by the record.
Since writing the opinion in this case, the Supreme Court in the case of Lucas v. Lucas, 143 S. W. 1153, in which the opinion was delivered February 21, 1912, has passed upon the question of partitioning the proceeds of a homestead which was condemned for street purposes. The court in its opinion uses the following language: “From the ruling of this court as above indicated we are clearly of opinion the proceeds of the condemned homestead were not subject to partition between the widow, Mrs. Lucas, and the heirs of her husband against her election. It is also clear, as we think, that such proceeds were upon the same basis of ownership as the homestead before its conversion into money, and that the widow owned one half and the heirs of her husband the other half, the whole being subject to reinvestment in another homestead in such manner as to indicate by proper recitations, in the judgment of the court conducting the condemnation proceedings, the interest therein of the interested parties subject to the homestead use in the widow during her life or for such period as she may elect to use same as a homestead.”
• Appellant in the ease now being considered did not ask that the money be invested in another homestead, nor ask that it be given her under bond, but insisted that it be set apart to her absolutely in lieu of a homestead. The court was correct in refusing such request, as it would have amounted to a confiscation of the property of the heirs.
Motion overruled.