Alexander v. Holt

59 Tex. 205
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 30, 1883
DocketCase No. 940
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 59 Tex. 205 (Alexander v. Holt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander v. Holt, 59 Tex. 205 (Tex. 1883).

Opinion

Willie, Chief Justice.—

The principal question in this case was decided a few days since in The County of Anderson v. Kennedy, and upon'the authority of that decision we must necessarily sustain the action of the district judge in granting the temporary injunction, and in perpetuating it upon final hearing.

The grounds upon which the injunction was asked were the exemption of the property seized from execution, and the want of authority in Cole (who assumed to be acting as special constable) to make the levy.

It is unnecessary to consider the last ground, as, in our opinion, the property levied upon was not subject to execution for the debts of the 'appellee. So far as the corn and fodder were concerned, they were exempt under the law in force at the time, as provisions and [206]*206forage on hand for home consumption, it having been alleged and proved that they were not more than sufficient to reasonably support appellee’s family and supply his stock for one year. Pasch. Dig., art. 6834.

We are of opinion, also, that the crops of corn and cotton growing on the homestead were also exempt, as necessary to its beneficial enjoyment.

Chief Justice Hemphill, in Cobbs v. Coleman, 14 Tex., 598, said that it was “ very clear that by these reservations the legislature intended a real substantial benefit. . . That by fair construction the grants in the statute must include not only the subject itself, but everything absolutely essential to its beneficial enjoyment.” The same doctrine is also deducible from Anderson v. McKay, 30 Tex., 186.

The beneficial enjoyment of a rural homestead supposes that the owner may use it for purposes of cultivation and raising upon it the fruits of the earth. • Of this right he would be deprived if creditors are allowed to invade it, and seize his growing crops and subject them to their debts.

The injunction was rightly perpetuated, and the judgment below is affirmed. •

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Hardage
69 B.R. 681 (N.D. Texas, 1987)
Rutherford v. Vandygriff
73 S.W.2d 569 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
City of Dallas v. Wright
36 S.W.2d 973 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
First Nat. Bank of Littlefield v. Cooper
12 S.W.2d 271 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Stratton v. Ermis
268 F. 533 (Fifth Circuit, 1920)
Mann v. Brown
201 S.W. 438 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Olmsted-Stevenson Co. v. Miller
231 F. 69 (Ninth Circuit, 1916)
Poe v. Ferguson
168 S.W. 459 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Callaghan v. Tobin
90 S.W. 328 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)
Moore & Rollow v. Graham
69 S.W. 200 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
In re Hoag
97 F. 543 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1899)
Gulp, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Blankenbeckler
35 S.W. 331 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
Parsons v. Hartman
39 L.R.A. 98 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1894)
Morgan v. Rountree
55 N.W. 65 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1893)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Rawlins
16 S.W. 430 (Texas Supreme Court, 1891)
Phillips v. Warner
16 S.W. 423 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1890)
Lee v. Welborne
9 S.W. 471 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)
Coates v. Caldwell
8 S.W. 922 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Dowe
6 S.W. 790 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)
Kingsland, Ferguson & Co. v. McGowan Bros.
3 Willson 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Tex. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-holt-tex-1883.