Cobb v. Smith
Citations
- 88 Ill. 199
Syllabus
<p>1. Homestead—defectinrelease obviated, by abandonment. Where a mortgagor abandons his homestead, it is immaterial whether he knew or was ignorant of the fact that- the mortgage contained a clause releasing it at the time he executed the same, or whether his wife signed or acknowledged the same; the mortgage will thereby be rendered operative as to the homestead.* </p> <p>2. Same—abandonment. Where, after the execution of a mortgage on premises occupied as a homestead, the mortgagor removes to another county with his family, taking his household goods, or most of them, and votes in such other county, and the proof shows no intention of his ever returning, this will be sufficient evidence of an abandonment of the homestead.* </p> <p>3. Residence—intention important. The intention of a party enters into and forms an important element in fixing’and determining his residence.</p>
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Peirce v. PeirceIllinois Supreme Court· 1942-01-20· cited 33×
- Imhoff v. LipeIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-06-12· cited 15×
- Holterman v. PoynterIllinois Supreme Court· 1935-10-24· cited 14×
- Moffett v. HillIllinois Supreme Court· 1889-10-31· cited 7×
- Fry v. FryAppellate Court of Illinois· 1947-11-19· cited 5×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.