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: 200
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
20 IiKEN & Co, V. OLENCIC. [Term of
Opinion of the Court.
different purpose, because in some instances such lots may
have been used by the head of the family for his ordinary and
usual business avocation, and in this way indirectly contributed
to the support and comfort of the family. That such property
so used by the owner in connection with the business
which he pursues is advantageous to him, and if exempted from
the demands of creditors, it might contribute to the support
of the family, is not to be doubted. But this is also the case
with respect to any other property owned by the debtor.
If the fact that such property has contributed to the support
of the family before creditors seek to have it applied to
the payment of their debts, and that its rent will afford a fund
for their maintenance, is a reason why it should be exempted
as a part of the homestead, the same may be said of any other
property from which the debtor derives any rents or revenue.
To exempt property not in fact a part of the homestead, because
it will be a source of income from which a support for
the family may be drawn, would evidently be, in effect, to
extend the exemption to the full value of its constitutional
limitation, and to secure the family, not only by the homestead,
and the lots connected with and appendant thereto, or useful
and necessary for its comfort and enjoyment as a home, but
it may be also an income much beyond that of even a majority
of the most affluent class of our city population. A construction
of the constitutional exemption, intended to secure
a home for the family, of which it could not be deprived by misfortune
or improvidence, which would lead to such results, or
afford the means of such fraudulent practices against honest
creditors cannot be sanctioned, unless imperatively demanded
by the plain and unmistakable language in which it is expressed.
But the language of the constitution, instead of countenancing
such a construction, in our opinion, unmistakably
repels it. The language of the constitution is, "The home"
stead of the family of any city, town, or village, lot or lots,
"not to exceed, etc." Unquestionably the exemption is limited,
and confined to the homestead, and not to property of a
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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/m1/208/: accessed June 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .