Robson v. Hough

20 S.W. 523, 56 Ark. 621, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 215
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 26, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 20 S.W. 523 (Robson v. Hough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robson v. Hough, 20 S.W. 523, 56 Ark. 621, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 215 (Ark. 1892).

Opinion

Cockrilu, C. J.

i. Homestead in estate common,

An estate in common with others is sufficient to support a homestead exemption, withoutin exclusive possession .by the tenant who claims the privilege. Ward v. Mayfield, 41 Ark. 94; Thompson v. King, 54 id. 9.

% wteu right of home-attaches,

When real estate decends to several persons as ten- . . . 1 . -. ants m common, one of whom is married and residing the land with his family at the ancestor’s death, intending to continue his residence upon it as a home when the decent is cast, the privilege of the homestead attaches to his interest in the land the instant the estate vests in him, and precludes his creditor from acquiring a judgment or execution lien upon the land, to be asserted as superior to the homestead right.

There is no complaint of the judgment, except that it is not warranted by the proof. The general finding in favor of the appellee is as effective as a special finding of all the facts stated above would have been. The evidence warranted such a special finding. The same presumptions are indulged as though the finding were the verdict of a jury. Jones v. Glidewell, 53 Ark. 161.

3. Homestead in leasehold estate.

The appellee was the tenant of the ancestor when the latter died, and that fact is relied upon to cut off the homestead exemption. It tends to strengthen the right. A leasehold estate is sufficient to support the exemption. The testimony warranted the finding that the appellee had established his home on the land under that estate. The addition to his estate which he acquired by inheritance did not make the place any the less his home or subject it to the judgment or execution lien. No interest of a debtor in his homestead can be subjected to the creditor’s judgment.

of homestead, 4.-, As to

The question as to the debtor’s abandonment of his homestead was submitted to the court and determined against the creditors on the testimony. The finding on that score also is sustained by the evidence.

Affirm.

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

Related

Childs v. Lambert
323 S.W.2d 564 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1959)
Elms v. Hall
215 S.W.2d 1021 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1948)
Nichols v. Arkansas Trust Company
179 S.W.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1944)
Jones v. Thompson
166 S.W.2d 1036 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1942)
City National Bank v. Johnson
96 S.W.2d 482 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1936)
López Rudón v. López
48 P.R. 315 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1935)
Harris v. Ray
154 S.W. 499 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Spaulding v. Haley
142 S.W. 172 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Pullen v. Simpson
86 S.W. 801 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
Newton v. Russian
85 S.W. 407 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
White Sewing Machine Co. v. Wooster
50 S.W. 1000 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1899)
Merrill v. Harris
46 S.W. 538 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.W. 523, 56 Ark. 621, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robson-v-hough-ark-1892.