Archibald v. Jacobs

Citations

• 69 Tex. 248
• 6 S.W. 177
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 813

Syllabus

<p>1. Homestead. — An insolvent debtor who has assigned for the benefit of creditors, who at the time of such assignment has a homestead in which his family resides, can not afterwards claim homestead rights in another piece of property which he had begun to improve with a view of making it a home, but did not occupy as such, at the time of the assignment.</p> <p>2. Abandonment. — Abandonment of a homestead occupied as such, can not be accomplished by mere intention; there must be a discontinuance of the use, coupled with an intention not again to use as a home, to constitute abandonment, and without the abandonment of an existing homestead no right can exist to fix that character to another property, unless it be by way of addition to the existing homestead.</p> <p>3. Case Distinguished. — This ease distinguished from Franklin v. Coffee, 18 Texas, 417; Barns v. White, 5 Texas, 628; Swope v. Stanzenberger, 59 Texas, 390; and Gerdner v. Douglass, 64 Texas, 79.</p> <p>4. Homestead. — The doctrine above announced with reference to a residence homestead, applies also to the business homestead.</p> <p>6. Charge of Court — Homestead.—See opinion for a charge of the court regarding homestead rignts, held erroneous.</p>