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: 437
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] ROGERS V. RAGLAND. 437
Argument for the defendant in error.
rural homestead; and that having been dedicated, when they
partook of the nature of a rural homestead, the test of quantity
alone will be applied, even after the change.
The language of the Constitution, it seems to us, is so plain'
as not to require construction. "The homestead of a family
"not to exceed two hundred acres of land (not included inl a
"town or city) "-this is the rural homestead, and no homestead
can be a rural homestead that is included in a town or
city, under the terms of the Constitution, if there are to be
only two distinct classes. If so distinctly divided by the Constitution,
then the other class must include every other description,
and the language of the Constitution fully warrants
this conclusion. " Or any town or city lot or lots in value not
4' to exceed two thousand dollars," is the description, which in
the nature of things was intended to, and does by the very
terms, include every character of homestead actually in a town
or city. "Any lot " cannot be confined and restricted to include
only a "building-lot," or a lot within what was arbitrarily
called the "town proper," as distinguished from the
town generally. It cannot be restricted to a lot one hundred
varas square, nor to a lot of one acre. The word " any" is not
a word of restriction or limitation. The school dictionary defines
it: " every, whoever, whatever." Therefore, every lotwhatever
lot situated in a town or city is the subject of dedication
to any use of the family, which would constitute it the
homestead or a part of the homestead. And the constitutional
restriction is on its value and not on its quantity'; on its use
for the comfort of the family or the members of the family
and not upon its name of " farm-lot " or " building-lot."
The lots 0, P, and W, in this case, are situated in the town.
of Victoria, subject to its jurisdiction in every particular, and
were so situated when acquired by Dr. Ragland and dedicated
to home uses. Lot four in block seventy-one was first acquired,
and these afterwards, and all became the unit called a homestead,
according to the rule of this court, in Campbell v.
McManus (32 Texas, 442).
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/m1/445/: accessed July 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .