Moore v. Dunning

29 Ill. 130
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

This trust deed was not acknowledged as required by the statute, in order to release the homestead. Consequently, if it still continued to be the homestead of the family, it remained unaffected by that deed, even if the deed could take effect after that, which is a point we do not now decide. The only question, therefore, is, whether the desertion by the husband, leaving his family still occupying the homestead, was an abandonment of it as a homestead. To this there can be but one answer, which is in the negative. This place still continued the home and residence of the husband, as well as his family, at least, until it is proved that he had acquired a home and a settlement elsewhere, and this the law can never assume he has done. The presumption is, that he continues a wanderer, without a home, until he returns to his duty and his family.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Moore v. Dunning, 29 Ill. 130 (Ill. 1862).

29 Ill. 130 (Moore v. Dunning) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Evrard
333 N.E.2d 765 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1975)
Montgomery v. Dane
98 S.W. 715 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)
Newton v. Russian
85 S.W. 407 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
Green v. Simon
46 N.E. 693 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
Dittey v. Ellifritz
8 Ohio C.C. 278 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1894)
In re Pratt
19 F. Cas. 1247 (W.D. Michigan, 1874)
Buck v. Conlogue
49 Ill. 391 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1868)
White v. Clark
36 Ill. 285 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1865)