Bassett v. Messner

Citations

• 30 Tex. 604

Syllabus

<p>The ease of Taylor v. Boulware, (17 Tex., 74,) defining and protecting the homestead, is affirmed. (Paschal’s Dig., Note 198.)</p> <p>Where a purchaser at sheriff’s sale sued the husband and wife to recover the homestead; the lis mota was the homestead, which is not subject to administration ; and, the husband having died pending the appeal in the Supreme Court, his administrator is not a necessary party.</p> <p>The town of B was a hundred-acre tract of land divided into streets and squares. M bought seventeen acres, adjoining the town tract, upon which he made and improved his homestead. The subsequent incorporation of the town of B, extending its boundaries over one hundred acres, did not, and under the constitution could not, change M's homestead from a country to a town homestead. (Paschal’s Dig., Const, of State, art. VII, $ 22, note 198.)</p> <p>Not being an inhabitant of the village, M could not be presumed to consent to the act of incorporation; and even could his tacit or actual consent be proved, it would seem that if the effect be to change the homestead, the consent of the wife must be given in the manner required by the statute. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1003, Note 427.)</p>