Cahill v. Wilson

Citations

• 62 Ill. 137

Syllabus

<p>1. Homestead—lost hi/ abandonment. In 1859 a husband and wife executed a deed of trust upon premises which had been occupied by them as a homestead, the title to Avhich was in the wife, there being no release of the homestead right. Two years prior thereto they remoA'ed from the premises and were continuously absent until 18G2, a period of five years, one year of Avhich they resided out of the county. The husband Avhen he left had contracted to open a farm upon Avhich he Avas to reside three years. During the absence the home premises Avere rented to different persons. They Avere sold under the trust deed in March, 1861: Held, that the homestead right was lost by abandonment, and that the lien attached while such abandonment was complete, and could not be defeated by returning and residing on the premises.</p> <p>2. When a party left his homestead some tAvo years before he incumbered the same, and changed his residence, accompanied by his family, Avith a vieAV of opening a farm and bettering his condition, it seems that the creditor could not be charged with information that the premises were claimed as a homestead, except by the actual residence of the party. The occupancy, of a tenant will afford no notice of the right.</p>