Reinbach v. Walter

Illinois Supreme Court

Reinbach v. Walter

27 Ill. 393

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1862

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 27 Ill. 393 (Reinbach v. Walter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reinbach v. Walter, 27 Ill. 393 (Ill. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

As the defendant did not prove that any portion of the premises were his homestead at the time the judgment was rendered and when the lien attached, the homestead law has no application. The proof is, that it was his homestead at the time of the sheriff’s sale. He may have moved upon the premises but the week before. Had he proved his possession at the time the lien attached, the same as it was at the time of the sale, we should be inclined to hold that the dwelling-house, the smoke-house, the stable, the horse lot, and the grounds connected therewith, for domestic and family purposes, constitute the homestead, and that the store and warehouse, and the grounds used for the business done in them, did not constitute a part of the homestead. It is impossible to say, from this bill of exceptions, how these grounds should be divided, as having been used for these several purposes. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Caton, C. J.

As the defendant did not prove that any portion of the premises were his homestead at the time the judgment was rendered and when the lien attached, the homestead law has no application. The proof is, that it was his homestead at the time of the sheriff’s sale. He may have moved upon the premises but the week before. Had he proved his possession at the time the lien attached, the same as it was at the time of the sale, we should be inclined to hold that the dwelling-house, the smoke-house, the stable, the horse lot, and the grounds connected therewith, for domestic and family purposes, constitute the homestead, and that the store and warehouse, and the grounds used for the business done in them, did not constitute a part of the homestead. It is impossible to say, from this bill of exceptions, how these grounds should be divided, as having been used for these several purposes. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ill. 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinbach-v-walter-ill-1862.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack