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: 435
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] ROGERS v. RAGLAND. 435
Argument for the defendant in error.
at least for construction, unless the letter of the Constitution
positively forbids, the rule should be applied to the homestead
of mixed character as well as to any other.
The Constitution applies two tests to the homestead, one of
value for city or town property, and one of quantity to property
not in a town or city. If, then, a homestead is partially in
and partially not in a town, it is of mixed character, and is subject
to both tests. Being a unit, although partaking of both
characters, if, upon applying both tests, it answers to each and
both, it is certainly within the reason of the Constitution, and
not against the letter of that instrument. Where does the Constitution
or law say that a homestead shall be wholly in town, or
otherwise wholly out of town ? A limitation upon the value
in a town, and upon the extent or quantity out of town, can
hardly be forced into a prohibition against the existence of a
homestead that is partially in town and partially out of town.
It only requires that both rules of limitation should be applied,
and to us it seems " to follow as the night the day," that if the
property used as such stand both tests, by all reason it is a constitutional
homestead, and is protected by that instrument.
The homestead claimed, in the case of Taylor v. Boulware,
consisted of two parcels of land purchased at different times,
the first of sixty odd acres, to which was afterwards added
five acres nearer the town of. Marshall, but adjoining the first.
On the five-acre tract were erected the residence and principal
buildings, but on the other tract were the horse-lot, slaughterpen,
corn-crib, brick-yard, part of the negro houses, and a
branch of water for every-day use. Both tracts were cultivated
as a homestead. The whole of the five-acre tract and
three acres of the other were, by an act of the Legislature, two
years after the homestead was made, included in the corporate
limits of the town. The suit was by a purchaser at sheriff's
sale., to recover sixty-six acres of the land outside the limits of
the town. This court held that the whole of the land, in 1848,
constituted the rural homestead, and that the subsequent extension
of the jurisdictional limits of the town in 1850 did not
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/m1/443/: accessed November 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .