Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 195

1875.] IKEN & Co. v. OLENICK. 195
Syllabus.
HERMAN IKEN AND CO. V. TH. OLENTCK AND OTHERS.
t. HOMESTEAD. Ordinarily there can be no blending of homestead rights
so that the exemptions can be partly in town and partly in the country.
3. SAME. The leading idea in Homestead Exemptions is to furnish a home
and shelter to the family; but limited and confined to the residence,
and not to property of a specific value, irrespective of its uses.
3. SAME. It was not the purpose of the framers of the Constitution, to exempt
a definite quantity of land in the country, or lots of a designated
value in town, irrespective of the uses to which such property had been
applied, so as to provide the family a homestead, if its head had failed
to do so, or extend and enlarge such homestead as had already been
provided, and secure to the family an adequate support, or the means
of making such support, without regard to the rights of creditors, out
of other property not connected with it, or from its nature and character,
or from its use forming part of the homestead.
4. SAME. The urban homestead may consist of one or more lots, but unless
such lot or lots constitute or form in fact part and parcel of the homestead
they are not included in the exemption; excluding from protection
lots in no way connected with or contributing, by their particular
use or appropriation, to the comfort of a mansion house as a home
stead.
5. SAME. The revenue or profit derived from property situated elsewhere
may contribute to the comfort of its possessor, but this by no means
authorizes the conclusion that a lot or lots disconnected from the homestead,
are appendages to it, or contributing by their use to the enjoy
ment of it as the residence or home of the family.
6. Where a head of a family lived at a place not laid off in lots and streets
-called a settlement (and which is a small collection of houses in the
country)--and owned four acres there in two separate tracts or lots, on
one upon which he gave a deed of .trust was a house in which he was
doing business as a merchant, on the other, three or four hundred
yards distant, and consisting of three acres was the residence of himself
and family; the two tracts being worth about two thousand and five
hundred dollars. Held that a sale of the store house and lot under the
trust deed passed title although the wife did not join in the trust deed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Friend & Smith, for appellants.
7B. Clay Pleasants, for appellees.