Benedict, Hall & Co. v. Webb

57 Ga. 348
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 57 Ga. 348 (Benedict, Hall & Co. v. Webb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Benedict, Hall & Co. v. Webb, 57 Ga. 348 (Ga. 1876).

Opinion

Bleckley, Judge.

The debt was contracted without waiver of homestead. The creditor, however, resisted when the debtor sought to have a homestead set apart to him out of the mortgaged property. An adjustment of the controversy took place, and the homestead was set apart, subject to the mortgage. We cannot discover from the record, that the stipulation between the parties embraced any homestead right, other than the one then being asserted. ■ The homestead estate then in question, was not to be superior to the mortgage. That estate depended upon the life of the debtor’s wife, she being the only member of his family within the peculiar protection of the homestead law. There were no minor children. When she died, the estate terminated: 47 Georgia Reports, 629. The subject in reference to which the parties stipulated went out of existence. All the homestead proceedings had spent their force; and the property was left as if no homestead had been taken. This being so, was the debtor, upon marrying again, restrained by the letter or the spirit of his contract, from asserting the new homestead right which resulted from his again becoming the head of a family ? The question is not without difficulty, but our best opinion is that he was not. It seems to us that the two homestead rights were quite distinct; that one of them, and it alone, was the subject of the contract; and that the other was not, in any way, anticipated or provided for. The contract was not general but specific — the homestead then applied for was to be granted, subject to the mortgage. The debtor is not using anything growing out of that grant of homestead, to resist the mortgage. He sets up altogether a new right, and supports it by the assignment of the homestead which he procured to be made in bankruptcy.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Rogers v. Kimsey
171 S.E. 707 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Saul v. Bowers
117 S.E. 86 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Holmes v. Holmes
1910 OK 274 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Vornberg & Co. v. Owens
14 S.E. 562 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1891)
Burns v. Lewis
13 S.E. 123 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1891)
Broach v. Powell
3 S.E. 763 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1887)
Shore v. Gastley
75 Ga. 813 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 Ga. 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benedict-hall-co-v-webb-ga-1876.