Bosquett v. Hall

13 S.W. 244, 90 Ky. 566, 1890 Ky. LEXIS 38
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedOctober 21, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 13 S.W. 244 (Bosquett v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bosquett v. Hall, 13 S.W. 244, 90 Ky. 566, 1890 Ky. LEXIS 38 (Ky. Ct. App. 1890).

Opinion

JUDGE LEWIS

DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

To entitle a person to the benefit of homestead exemption he must, when a debt against him is attempted to be satisfied, be a bona fide housekeeper, with a [567]*567family, whether such debt was created before or after the homestead was acquired.

“In legal contemplation, whomsoever it is the natural or moral duty of the debtor to support, or is dependent upon him for support, may be considered and treated as a member of his family.” (Bell v. Keach, 80 ky., 42.) And accordingly an infant brother or sister, or aged and helpless parent, or even a bastard child, may •and have been held to constitute a family in the meaning of the statute.

But the persons in this case residing with the debtor, though children, have no natural or legal obligation on ■the debtor for support, being strangers in blood to him. He may at any time separate from and cease to support or care for them without violating any legal or natural obligation; and to so extend the operation of the statute as to exempt the homestead in such case would be ■not only contrary to the policy of it, but place it in the power of a debtor, by subterfuge and fraud, to defeat his creditors. The construction and operation of the homestead law must be determined by some well-defined rule that is reasonable and just, not according to the mere will or caprice of the debtor.

It seems to us appellee is not entitled to benefit of the homestead exemption, and the judgment must be reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Related

In Re Kionka's Estate
113 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Trapp v. Hebbard
113 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Foreman v. Cook
127 S.W.2d 856 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1939)
Owens v. Altsheller & Co.
93 S.W.2d 844 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Deboe v. Brown
22 S.W.2d 111 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1929)
Roberts v. Frank Carrithers & Bros.
202 S.W. 659 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Fox v. Waterloo National Bank
126 Iowa 481 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)
Adams v. Clark
48 Fla. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Louisville Banking Co. v. Anderson
44 S.W. 636 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.W. 244, 90 Ky. 566, 1890 Ky. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosquett-v-hall-kyctapp-1890.