Shryock & Rowland v. Latimer

Citations

• 57 Tex. 674
• 1882 Tex. LEXIS 198

Syllabus

<p>L Homestead — Place of business.— Aman owned and occupied with his-family an urban homestead in 1876, and carried on the business of a merchant in the lower story of his dwelling-house. After ceasing to do business as a merchant in 1877, he removed his family to a new home, owned by him in a different portion of the same town, and rented out the old home place for mercantile and other purposes, using the rents to aid in supporting his family, and intending to again use it as a place to carry on his business as a merchant if he should recover from financial embarrassments. In trespass to try title brought by the purchaser at sheriff’s sale, under a judgment against the husband and wife in 1878, lield —</p> <p>(1) While the constitution protects from forced sale the place of business of the head of the family in a city, town or village, though situate in a different locality from the home place, this protection exists only so long as it is used for the purposes contemplated by the constitution.</p> <p>(2) The fact that he contemplated resuming business in the store-house, if able to do so at some future time, was immaterial.</p> <p>(3) The law no more protects a man in a place for business which he is not using, and which he is making no preparation to use, than it does in a place for a home which is in fact not a homo, and in reference to which no steps have been taken to make it a home for the family.</p> <p>2. Same.—• The judgment creditor purchased at execution sale other lots which had been conveyed by the husband to his wife for the consideration recited, of money borrowed from her, and her deed was recorded before any right under the judgment vested in the purchaser at sheriff’s sale. Held, that in the absence of any evidence of fraud, the conveyance passed the title to the wife.</p>