Court Opinion

ID: 9831746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:19:48.386089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.530688
License: Public Domain

On Second Motion for Rehearing.
,Eor the first time our attention is called, upon motion for rehearing, to an obscurity in the testimony which renders it at least uncertain that all the land claimed by appellants had been stamped with the homestead ■character. The proof shows, and the agreed fact is, that appellant W. H. Tucker inherited a' one-twentieth interest in 173 acres of land which, by actual computation, would be between eight and nine acres. Both Tucker and his wife testified that the tract in which they asserted a homestead interest, and which they testified was set apart and given to them by Tucker’s father as a homestead, and which they improved and lived upon as a homestead, comprehended only three or four acres. Under the view of the law expressed in our original opinion, to which we continue strictly to adhere, of course appellants’ homestead right could not exist beyond the area of land to which they acquired a homestead title through the surrender and the accession of title to them by the father of W. H. Tucker out of his homestead tract. Since the evidence fails to fix, definitely, the quantity of land which appellants acquired as a homestead, ■ and since this can be ascertained only by definite proof upon the particular point, it is necessary that the cause be reversed and remanded, which is accordingly done.
Reversed and remanded.