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: 199
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] IKEN & Co. v. OLENICKI 199
Opinion of the Court,
The leading idea in such exemption, as we have said, is to
furnish a home and shelter to the family. This however would
have been but poorly done, if the homestead exemption in the
country had been limited to the house occupied by the family, or
the yard, garden, and lots appendant to it merely as a residence.
The idea of a home or residence in the country imports that
there is connected with it the means and opportunity of following
the pursuits of the country. The mere exemption of
the residence would ordinarily be of little practicable benefit
to the family, as it would probably have to be abandoned, and
the family go elsewhere to find employment from which to
realize a support. The homestead exemption in the country
was therefore extended so as to include two hundred acres of
the land previously occupied, appropriated, and used in connection
with it. The land thus exempted is evidently incident
and appendant to and from the nature of-the case forms a part
of the country homestead.
The exemption of an urban homestead was also based upon
the idea of securing a home for the family adequate to its wants
and superior demands over those of creditors. But as the business
of a majority of those living in cities, towns and villages,
is not confined to the places of their residences, the limitation
of the urban homestead was fixed, not by the size or number
of the lots designated or appropriated as a home or a residence,
but to their value at the time they were so designated, without
reference to their subsequent appreciation, or the improvements
placed upon them.
Certainly the framers of the constitution were not ignorant
of the fact, that much the larger number of those who have
homesteads in our cities, towns and villages, depend for support
upon other sources than the use and appropriation of
stores, offices, or shops for the particular business or vocation to
which they are accustomed. There is therefore no reason to
suppose, that in exempting from the demands of creditors the
lot or lots designated and appropriated as a homestead, there
was an intention to exempt, also, other lots used for an entirely
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. 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., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/207/: accessed February 21, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .