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: 202
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
202 IKEN & CO. v. OLENICK. [Term of
Opinion of the Court.
adjoining, or in actual use, as appendant to and part thereof,
is notice to creditors and purchasers dealing with the husband.
But if any lots throughout the city, which may have been used
for any business purpose by the husband, thereby become apart
and parcel of the homestead, which cannot be reached by
creditors, is alienated by the husband without being joined by
the wife, it is needless to say that the security of those so dealing
with the husband rests, to a very great extent, on a moral
rather than any legal foundation.
We have been led to discuss the question presented in this
case thus elaborately, not by reason of its intrinsic difficulty,
or any doubt on our part as to its proper determination, but
out of our great respect for the seemingly contrary opinion of
the learned and distinguished jurist, who was the first Chief
Justice of this court, as may be inferred from expressions used
by him in the case of Stone v. Prior, 19 Texas, 372, and
also from the fact that it appears from references to this case,
in subsequent opinions of other members of this court, that it
seems to have been supposed that the homestead exemption
had been held in that case to have a broader scope than we
think can be given it. (30 Texas, 440; 33 Texas, 212; 34 Texas
617; 38 Texas, 422.)
An examination of the case of Stone v. Pryor will show,
however, that the lot in question in that case was applied to
some extent, at least, to homestead purposes. And in most, if
not all of the subsequent cases, though apparently approving
the broad rule, which seems to be sanctioned by Judge Hemphill,
that the lot, if it is necessary to the convenience or suce
cess in business of the husband, though entirely disconnected
with the homestead, is within the exemption, the facts do not
call directly for the decision of the question. It may also be
observed that the cases of Hancock v. Morgan, 17 Texas, 582,
and Mlethery v. Walker, Id. 593, which are the only authorities
cited in Stone v. Pryor, do not support this proposition.
In the last of these cases the lot in question was held not to
be a part of the homestead, and the first merely decides that
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/m1/210/: accessed July 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .