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: 433
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] RoGERS v. RAGLAND. 433
Argument for the defendant in error.
residence of the family, near the public square, was situated;
the others were lots used for the growth of supplies for the
family,, and other things, and were distant from the first, but
were, nevertheless, in the town, and subject to taxation and all
the regulations of the townauthorities, just as any other property
whatever; they were laid off and mapped, with streets for
reaching them, and were lots in the town of Victoria as much
as those fronting on the public square, the difference being only
in size and in the kind of use to which they were likely to be
put; they were sometimes called " farm-lots," and it was either
as such, or for supplies of fire-wood, etc., that they were generally
used by the inhabitants.
Apply the principles announced in Pryor v. Stone (19 Texas,
371); Hancock v. Morgan (17 Texas, 583); and Ragland v.
Rogers (34 Texas, 619), to the facts of this case, and all the lots,
the one near the square and the others more remote became;
by the use of them shown in the evidence, parts of a united
whole, and that whole the homestead of the family.
Judge Hemphill says, in the first of these cases, that " It is
" not declared that the lots shall adjoin or be contiguous to
( each other. All that, by fair construction of the language, is
"required to entitle the property to exemption is. that the prop"erty
should be used for the convenience or uses of the head
"or members of the family. The exemption should not be
"construed as reserving merely a residence where a family may
" eat drink, and sleep, but also a place where the head or mem"bers
may pursue such business or avocation as may be necessary
for the support and comfort of the family. X * * *
' The exemption is not to be thus restricted in its. benefits. It
"allows any number of lots, not to exceed two thousand dol"
lars, and it cannot be material how many, or how far, or how
"near, or remote from each other, may be the lots occupied for
"the convenience of the family, and for the prosecution of the
"business or employment of its head or members."
In Williams v. Hall (33 Texas, 215), Judge Denison says:
"In the case of Hancock v. Morgan (17 Texas, 583),. and in
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/m1/441/: accessed July 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .