79

existing at the time the fund was finally disposed of," and if at such period the debtor has abandoned78 or has sold or waived so the homestead he is not entitled to the fund. If certain debts are charges against the homestead while others are not, the former share pro rata with all other debts in the surplus remaining after deducting the statutory exemption,81 and so far as concerns the unpaid balance of the nonexempt claims, they may come against the proceeds which represent the exemption. 82 But such part of the proceeds as remains after satisfying nonexempt claims will not be subject to general debts which are unenforceable against the homestead, if the debtor intends to use such surplus in redeeming his homestead or purchasing another. 83 The debtor may elect to have the surplus fund applied to payment of a homestead mortgage in preference to prior judgments, which, although constituting a lien upon it, do not subject it to sale. 84 Debts contracted before the enactment of the homestead law take precedence in distribution of proceeds over debts contracted after such enactment, although reduced to judgment before judgment is recovered on the old debts.8 Where land, including the homestead, is subject to the lien of a judgment, duly docketed before the execution of a mortgage given by the husband and wife upon the entire tract, and such tract is sold by agreement of parties, so much of the proceeds as exceeds the statutory exemption will be applied to the judgment, the amount representing the exemption will be invested under direction of court, and upon termination of the homestead right, will be applied on the judgment, the remainder of such amount, with accruing interest, being applied upon the mortgage debt.86

85

[§ 250] b. Allowance to Debtor. Where it appears that the homestead premises are in excess of the statutory amount, that they are chargeable 77. Cooper v. Cooper, 24 Oh. St. 488.

[a] Reason for rule.-"During the time his application for the exemption is pending, and while the money remains subject to the order of the court, he may fortunately acquire a homestead, or unfortunately all the members of his family may die, or for some other reason he may cease to be the head of a family, and therefore not be entitled to the exemption." Cooper v. Cooper, 24 Oh. St. 488, 490.

78. Cooper v. Cooper, 24 Oh. St. 488.

79. In re Penn. 130 La. 740, 58 S 554.

80. In re Penn, supra.

[a] His vendee or subrogee in such a case may exercise the right; and it can hardly be contended that he and his vendee can each assert his homestead claim with the homestead proceeds for one such claim. In re Penn, 130 La. 740, 58 S 554.

81. Webster v. Bronston, 68 Ky. 521. But compare White v. Rice, 87 Mass. 72 (creditors holding nonexempt claims may take the entire amount realized from sale of the homestead, in priority to general creditors, and take a dividend in the proceeds of other property, with general creditors for the balance of their claims; the proceeds from the sale of the reversionary interest, after the expiration of the homestead right, being distributed among general creditors).

82. Webster v. Bronston, 5 Bush (Ky.) 521.

83. Mitchell v. Milhoan, 11 Kan. 617.

84. Leak v. Gay, 1107 N. C. 468, 482, 483, 12 SE 312 315.

85.

with the debt in question, and that it is impraeticable to divide them so as to assign the homestead in the land itself, the sale of the whole tract may be ordered and an allowance of the statutory amount in lieu of homestead made to the owner out of the proceeds, irrespective of the rights of creditors whose claims are subject to the homestead exemption; but only after paying such of his debts as have precedence over his homestead exemption. The proceeds allotted in lieu of the homestead are subject to the same liabilities,89 and are usually protected to the same extent as was the original home tract.

87

90

88

[§ 251] C. Investment of Proceeds. In some jurisdictions the proceeds realized from the sale of a homestead may be reinvested under order of court in another homestead for the benefit of the debtor and his family, where it appears that he is insolvent,91 or in case of his death, for his widow and children.92 In North Carolina where a judgment debtor mortgages all of his lands, including his homestead, the homestead right passes to the mortgagee, and if all the property is afterward sold under the judgment that portion of the proceeds representing the homestead exemption will be invested under the direction of the court until the termination of the homestead right, and the interest thereon applied to the mortgage.

93

[§ 252] O. Perfecting and Keeping Alive Liens. Liens which are held to attach to the premises, whether arising prior or subsequent to the time when the premises were impressed with the homestead character, must be perfected as provided by the general laws, with such qualifications as may be injected by the exemption law, and kept alive, in order to retain whatever rights they may possess against the homestead, and priority over other liens. 94

Nebr. 164, 77 NW 375; Vanstory v. Thornton, 112 N. C. 196, 17 SE 566. 34 AmSR 483, 114 N. C. 375, 377, 19 SE 359; Leak v. Gay, 107 N. C. 468, 482, 483, 12 SE 312, 315; Jackson v. Reid, 32 Oh. St. 443; Kelly v. Duffy, 31 Oh. St. 437.

89. Van Thorniley v. Peters, 26 Oh. St.__471.

90. Robinson v. Blackerby, 5 SW 312, 9 KyL 375; Morrill v. Skinner, 457 Nebr. 164, 77 NW 375; Corey v. Plummer, 48 Nebr. 481. 67 NW 445; Prugh v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 48 Nebr. 414, 67 NW 309; Hoy v. Anderson, 39 Nebr. 386, 58 NW 125, 42 AmSR 591.

91. Ragland v. Moore, 51 Ga. 476; Elliott v. Mackorell, 19 S. C. 238. 92. McTaggert v. Smith, 14 Bush (Ky.) 414.

93. Vanstory v. Thornton, 112 N. C. 196, 17 SE 566, 34 AmSR 483, 114 N. C. 375, 377. 19 SE 259. See also supra § 227 note 27 [d].

94. Ark.-Brandon V. Moore, 50 Ark. 247. 7 SW 36, 7 AmSR 96. Cal-Sanders v. Russell, 86 Cal 119. 24 P 852, 21 AmSR 26. Ill-Wike v. Garner, 179 Ill. 257, 53 NE 613. 70 AmSR 102. Iowa.-Benbow v. Boyer, 89 Iowa 494, 56 NW 544.

La.-Gerson v. Gayle. 34 La. Ann. 337 [dist Taylor v. Saloy, 38 La Ann. 62; Hebert v. Mayer, 42 La Ann. 839, 8 S 590].

Mich. Davis Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Whitney, 61 Mich. 518. 28 NW 674. Nebr.-Horbach v. Smiley, 54 Nebr. 217, 74 NW 623.

Nev.-Adams v. Baker, 24 Nev. 162, 51 P 252, 77 AmSR 799 (recognizing rule).

[a] Mortgage not covering homestead through mistake. Where

[ 254] 2. 2. Conveyance Subject to Homestead Right. A conveyance of land subject to the right of homestead therein is valid and carries with it the estate of the grantor, subject only to the homestead right, that is, the reversion after the existing homestead rights shall have expired; and this is so in jurisdictions where the homestead is not considered an estate in land. 10 Such a reservation is neither conclusive nor presumptive evidence of fraud. So a conveyance by the husband alone, not expressed to be subject to the homestead right, vests the estate in the vendee, subject only to the use and occupation by the husband and wife until another homestead is acquired,12 or until the character of the premises as a homestead is otherwise gone.13

11

[§ 255] 3. Creation of Lien. Whether or not a lien may be given on homestead property, and the circumstances under which it may be given, depends upon the particular constitutional and statutory provisions.1 If these provisions prohibit the giving of liens except such as are specially enumerated therein, 15 an attempt to give a lien other than one of the kinds enumerated is inoperative and the lien is void.16 Under a provision permitting a lien to be given it has been held that it may be created, among other methods, by renewal of a note which is chargeable against part of the premises, and an extension of the former lien so as to cover the

24

25

19

[256] B. Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions-1. In General. While the owner of a homestead may convey or encumber it, in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions prohibiting him from so doing, 22 yet the constitution may prohibit him from conveying or encumbering his homestead or place material limitations on his power in this regard, 23 and the legislature may do the same thing when not restricted by the constitution. In practically all jurisdictions by organie law or by legislation or by both, restrictions are placed on the right to convey or encumber a homestead.2 The most usual restriction forbids the conveyance or mortgage of the homestead, except by instruments in the execution of which both husband and wife join. 26 Some homestead provisions have prohibited the conveyance, encumbrance, or release of homestead rights by husband and wife where there are infant children living27 only with the consent of the court and a reinvestment of the proceeds for the same uses," or for any purpose except for designated debts.29 If restrictions of the character under consideration are complied with a valid conveyance may be made,30 and it is immaterial how the homestead property was acquired.31 But there can be no operative conveyance or effectual release of the exemption unless the mode pointed out by

28

a right of homestead, executes deed to another of an undivided half of the land, this bars the right of homestead, and he cannot acquire a new right of homestead by continuing to occupy the premises in common with the grantee).

Property held by cotenants see supra § 1631⁄2-170.

3. Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584, 13 SE 749.

Exchange of homestead see supra §§ 129, 134 et seq.

4. See Fraudulent Conveyances § 66 notes 63, 67.

5. Griffin v. Treutlen, 48 Ga. 148; Wood v. Lord, 51 N. H. 448; Strachn❘ v. Foss, 42 N. H. 43; Lippencott v. York, 86 Tex. 276, 24 SW 275; Hensel v. International Bldg., etc., Assoc., 85 Tex. 215, 20 SW 116; Wingate v. People's Bldg., etc., Sav. Assoc., 15 Tex. Civ. A. 416, 39 SW 999.

6. In re Bitner, 255 Fed. 48, 166 CCA 376; Brokaw v. Ogle, 170 Ill. 115, 48 NE 394.

7. In re Bitner, 255 Fed. 48. 166 CCA 376 (notwithstanding such a sale, the owner may dispose of the homestead as he pleases, free of judgment liens).

8. Ga.-Nash v. People's Loan, etc., Co., 151 Ga. 40, 105 SE 641; Carrie v. Carnes, 145 Ga. 184, 88 SE 949; Aiken v. Weldon, 139 Ga. 15, 76 SE 359; Waters v. Waters, 124 Ga. 349, 52 SE 425; Walker v. Hodges, 113 Ga. 1042, 39 SE 480; Goodell v. Hall, 112 Ga. 435, 37 SE 725.

Iowa.-Allbright V. Hannah, 103 Iowa 98, 72 NW 421; Stewart v. Brand, 23 Iowa 477.

Mass.-Silloway v. Brown, 12 Allen 30; Doyle v. Coburn, 6 Allen 71; White v. Rice, 5 Allen 73; Smith v. Provin, 4 Allen 516; McMurray v. Connor, 2 Allen 205.

1232.

$ 5.

But a

specific lien may be acquired in one of three ways: First, by proceeding under the Mechanics' Lien Act; second, by attachment in an action to recover the debt; or third, by reducing the claim to judgment. Hasey v. McMullen, supra.

15. See infra § 299.

16. Jones v. Goff, 63 Tex. 248; Wadsworth v. Powell, (Tex. Civ. A.) 191 SW 169; Hoefing v. Thulemeyer, (Tex. Civ. A.) 142 SW 102; Murphy v. Williams, (Tex. Civ. A.) 116 SW 412.

[a] In Texas a husband has no power without the wife's consent to create a lien upon the homestead as against his wife and children surviving him, for money advanced for the purpose of purchasing materials to be used in improving the home property. Gaylord v. Loughridge, 50 Tex. 573.

17. Stoker v. Patton, (Tex. Civ. A.) 35 SW 64.

18. Pioneer Sav., etc.. Co. v. Edwards, 12 Tex. Civ. A. 556, 34 SW 192. 19. Kallman v. Ludenecker, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 182, 28 SW 579.

20. Breneman V. Mayer, 24 Tex Civ. A. 164, 58 SW 725.

21.

22.

23.

Rutt v. Howell, 50 Iowa 697. See supra § 253. Moran v. Clark, 30 W. Va. 358. 4 SE 303, 8 AmSR 66.

24.

Moran v. Clark, 30 W. Va. 358, 4 SE 303, 8 AmSR 66; and cases infra this section and §§ 257 et seq. 299.

25. See constitutional and statutory provisions; and cases infra this section and § 257 et seq.

26.

27.

28.

See infra §§ 259-288.
See infra 300.
See infra § 298.

[257] 2. Construction and Operation of Restrictions. In case of conflict between a constitutional provision securing homestead rights and a statute upon the same subject the constitution controls, whether the statute enlarges or diminishes those rights.33 As between different statutes repeals by implication are not favored; 34 nor will a subsequent statute ordinarily be deemed retroactive,35 although curative acts may be passed validating conveyances of homesteads which were formally defective when executed.36

37

[258] 3. What Law Governs." While there is some authority apparently to the contrary,38 it is generally held that the right of alienation or encumbrance is governed by the law in force when the property was acquired, since vested rights of ownership cannot be destroyed by legislative or constitutional provisions.39 The owner may, however, voluntarily dedicate the property to the purposes of a homestead after the restrictions of the constitutional or statutory provisions have become 32. Pagel v. Tietje, (Iowa) 186 | Rights of surviving wife, husband, NW 938; Lunt v. Neeley, 67 Iowa 97, children, or heirs see infra § 500. 24 NW 739; Cowgell v. Warrington, 66 38. Watts v. Burnett, 56 Ala. 340 Iowa 666, 24 NW 266; Clay v. Rich- (the law in force when the instruardson, 59 Iowa 483, 13 NW 644. ment is executed usually governs) 39.

32. Hutchinson v. Stone, (Fla.) 84 S 151.

Waiver generally see infra §§ 381

388.

Hill v. Hill, 231 Fed. 345 [aff 247 Fed. 778, 159 CCA 636]; Gladney v. Sydnor, 172 Mo. 318. 72 SW 554, 95 AmSR 517, 60 LRA 880; Shaffer v. 33. Roberts v. Trammell, 55 Ga. Bledsoe, 117 N. C. 144, 23 SE 169: 383; Dunker v. Chedic, 4 Nev. 378; Gilmore v. Bright, 101 N. C. 382. Whelan v. Adams, 44 Okl. 696, 145 P 7 SE 751; Castleberry v. Maynard. 1158, LRA1915D 551; Barker v. Day- 95 N. C. 281; Fortune v. Watkins, 94 ton, 28 Wis. 367 (recognizing rule). N. C. 304; Reeves v. Haynes, 88 N. [a] Thus, where the constitution C. 310; Murphy v. McNeill, 82 N. C. of the state has authorized the alien- 221; Bruce v. Strickland, 81 N. C. ation or encumbrance of the home- 267. stead for certain enumerated purBruce v. Strickland, 81 N. C. poses only, a statute authorizing its alienation or encumbrance for other purposes is void. Roberts v. Trammell, 55 Ga. 383.

[b] Statute not in conflict with constitution.-A statute requiring a wife to join in a homestead mortgage does not conflict with a constitution declaring all lands are "alodial" and abolishing feudal tenures. Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367.

34. Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299; First Nat. Bank v. Meacham, (Tenn. Ch. A.) 36 SW 724. See generally Statutes [36 Cyc 1071].

40.

267.

[a] In Georgia the Homestead Act of 1868- governing the sale of a homestead applies to debts contracted prior to that date, and prevents the sale of the debtor's reversionary interest in the home tract. Van Horn v. McNeill, 79 Ga. 121, 4 SE 111.

41. Cohen v. Davis, 20 Cal. 187. Abandonment of homestead see infra § 350.

42. Cohen v. Davis, 20 Cal. 187. 43. Cohen v. Davis, 20 Cal. 187. 44. Kelly v. Mosby, 34 Okl. 218, 124 P 984.

Statutes curing defects in conveyances see supra § 257.

45. Moody v. Century Sav. Bank, 239 U. S. 374, 36 SCt 111, 60 L. ed. See generally Conflict of Laws §§ 40-79 et seq.

46. Moody v. Century Sav. Bank, 239 U. S. 374, 36 SCt 111, 60 L. ed. 239.

35. Gluckauf v. Bliven, 23 Cal. 312; Cohen v. Davis, 20 Cal. 187; Exp. Jeter, 64 S. C. 405, 42 SE 196. See generally Statutes [36 Cyc 1201]. 36. McDaniels V. Sammons, 75 339. Ark. 139, 86 SW 997; Garretson v. White, 69 Ark. 603, 65 SW 115; Beavers v. Myar, 68 Árk. 333, 58 SW 40; Alkire Grocery Co. v. Jackson, 66 Ark. 455, 51 SW 459; Shattuck v. Byford, 62 Ark. 431, 35 SW 1107; Shattuck v. Lyons, 62 Ark. 338, 35 SW 436; British, etc., Mortg. Co. v. Winchell, 62 Ark. 160, 34 SW 891; Harrison Bank v. Gibson, 60 Ark. 269, 30 SW 39: Sidway V. Lawson, 58 Ark. 117, 23 SW 648; Johnson v. Fay, 16 Gray (Mass.) 144; Wildes v. Vanvoorhis, 15 Gray (Mass.) 139. See generally Statutes [36 Cyc 1221]. But see infra § 258 text and note 44.

[a] Thus, where a husband's deed of trust without joinder of wife was invalid under the act of March 18, 1887 (Kirby Dig. § 3901), but was cured by Acts (1893) p 303, curing defective conveyances under former statute, the wife had no homestead interest in the land upon its sale under the deed of trust. Hanson v. Brown, 139 Ark. 60, 213 SW 12. 37. What law governs: Homestead rights generally see supra § 20. Proceedings for protection of homestead rights see infra § 418.

47. Cross references: Assent of wife to mortgage executed prior to establishment of homestead see supra § 208. Joinder of wife in waiver of homestead see infra § 386.

48. Ark.-Klenk v. Knoble, 37 Ark. 298; Lindsay v. Norrill, 36 Ark. 545. Under statute see infra note 49.

Minn. Olson v. Nelson, 3 Minn. 53. Under statute see infra note 49. Nebr.-Schields V. Horbach, 49 Nebr. 262, 68 NW 524. Under statute see infra note 49.

Tenn.-Kincaid V. Burem, 9 Lea 553; Nichol v. Davidson County, 8 Lea 389; Bilbrey v. Poston, 4 Baxt. 232; Kennedy v. Stacey, 1 Baxt. 220. Under statute see infra note 49.

Utah. Cook v. Higley, 10 Utah 228, 37 P 336.

W. Va.-Moran v. Clark, 30 W. Va. 358. 4 SE 303, 8 AmSR 66.

Wis.-Godfrey v. Thornton, 46 Wis. 677, 1 NW 362; Platto v. Cady, 12 Wis. 461, 78 AmD 752. Under statute see infra note 49.

48

[a] In Louisiana, since the constitution of 1879 (1) the husband has no power to "mortgage" the homestead without the wife's consent, except for certain designated claims. Pugh v. Hunter, 90 S 646. (2) But the husband may sell the homestead (Pugh v. Hunter, supra), (3) provided he does so in good faith, but not otherwise (Jefferson v. Herold, 144 La. 1064, 81 S 714). (4) In view of Code art 2659, the rule that the husband may sell homestead without wife's consent applies to a dation en paiement; the only difference between them being that the latter cannot be perfected by mere consent without delivery, and that therefore the thing sold is at the risk of the seller until delivery, and may until then be seized by the seller's creditors. Pugh v. Hunter, supra. (5) Community property see infra § 261 text and note 56.

49. U. S.-Graham V. National Surety Co., 244 Fed. 914, 157 CCA 264; Hill v. Hite, 79 Fed. 826 [aff 85 Fed. 208, 29 CCA 549]; Hannon v. Sommer, 10 Fed. 601, 3 McCrary 126; Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 8 Fed. 303, 1 McCrary 388; In re Cross, 6 F. Cas. No. 3,426, 2 Dill. 320; In re Smith, 22 F. Cas. No. 12,979, 2 Hughes 307.

Ala.-Deramus V. Deramus, 204 Ala. 144, 85 S 397; Sims v. Sims, 165 Ala. 141, 51 S 731; Clark v. Bird, 158 Ala. 278, 48 S 359, 132 AmSR 25; Marks v. Wilson, 115 Ala. 561, 22 S 134; McGhee v. Wilson, 111 Ala. 615, 20 S 619, 56 AmSR 72; Thompson v. New England Mortg. Security Co., 110 Ala. 400, 18 S 315, 55 AmSR 29; Moses v. McClain, 82 Ala. 370, 2 S 741; Strauss v. Harrison, 79 Ala. 324; Crim v. Nelms, 78 Ala. 604; Watson v. Mancill, 76 Ala. 600; Alford V. Lehman, 76 Ala. 526; De Graffenried v. Clark, 75 Ala. 425; Hood v. Powell, 73 Ala. 171; Butts v. Broughton, 72 Ala. 294; Snedecor v. Freeman, 71 Ala. 140; Scott v. Simons, 70 Ala. 352; Slaughter v. McBride, 69 Ala. 510; Jenkins V. Harrison, 66 Ala. 345: Watts v. Gordon, 65 Ala. 546; Long v. Mostyn, 65 Ala. 543; Halso v. Seawright, 65 Ala. 431; Farley v. Whitehead, 63 Ala. 295; Garner v. Bond, 61 Ala. 84; Balkum v. Wood, 58 Ala. 642; McGuire v. Van Pelt, 55 Ala. 344; Miller v. Marx, 55 Ala. 322.

Ariz.-Hancock v. Herrick, 3 Ariz. 247, 29 P 13.

Ark. Ferrell v. Wood, 149 Ark. 376, 232 SW 577; McLeod v. McLeod, 130 Ark. 481, 198 SW 115; Oliver v. Routh, 123 Ark. 189, 184 SW 843; Waters v. Hanley, 120 Ark. 465, 179 SW 817; Newman v. Jacobson, 108

1118.

Ga.-Hall.v. Matthews, 68 Ga. 490. Ida-Hughes v. Latour Creek R. Co.. 30 Ida. 475, 166 P 219. Ill-Deke v. Huenkemeier, 289 Ill. 148. 124 NE 381; White v. Van Patten, 280 II. 215, 117 NE 472; Reminger v. Joblonski, 271 Ill. 71, 110 NE 903; Lininger v. Helpenstell. 229 III. 369. 82 NE 306. 120 AmSR 264; Jespersen v. Mech, 213 Ill. 488, 72 NE 1114: Strayer v. Dickerson, 305 Ill. 257. 68 NE 767: Donahoe v. Chicago Cricket Club. 177 Ill. 351. 52 NE 351: Gray v. Schofield, 175 Ill. 36. 51 NE 684: Anderson v. Smith, 159 Ill. 93, 42 NE 306; Lagger v. Mutual Union Loan. etc. Assoc.. 146 Ill. 283. 33 NE 946: Maxwell V. Maxwell, 145 Ill. 156. 34 NE 145; Barrows v. Barrows, 138 11. 649. 28 NE 983; Kitterlin v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Mut. Ins. Co., 134 Ill. 647. 25 NE 772. 10 LRA 220: Stahl v. Stahl, 114 II. 375, 2 NE 160; McMahill v. McMahill, 105 Ill. 596, 44 AmR 819; Browning v. Harris, 99 Ill. 456; Eldridge v. Pierce. 90 111. 474: Knox v. Brady, 74 I. 476: Richards v. Greene, 73 Ill. 54; Bressler v. Kent, 61 Ill. 426. 14 AmR 67: McDonald v. Crandall, 43 III. 231. 92 AmD 112; Marshall v. Barr, 35 Ill. 106: Thornton v. Boyden. 31 Ill. 200; Pardee v. Lindley. 31 Ill. 174. 83 AmD 219; Smith v. Miller. 31 I. 157: Connor v. Nichols, 31 Ill. 148: Hoskins v. Litchfield, 31 Ill. 137, 83 AmD 215: Boyd v. Cudderback. 31 Ill. 113: Best v. Allen, 30 Ill. 30, 81 AmD 338: Patterson v. Kreig. 29 Ill. 514: Columbian Bldg.. etc.. Assoc. v. Leeds. 128 111. A. 195; Milwaukee Mechanics' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kitterlin, 24 111. A. 188 [rev on other grounds 134 Ill. 647, 25 NE 772, 10 LRA 220];

Iowa. Robison V. Robison, 187 Iowa 1209, 175 NW 9; Singleton v. National Land Co., 183 Iowa 1108, 167 NW 97; Oviatt v. Oviatt, 174 Iowa 512, 156 NW 687; Lamb v. Cooper, 150 Iowa 18, 129 NW 323; Maxwell v. McCall, 145 Iowa 687, 124 NW 760; Alvis v. Alvis, 123 Iowa 546, 99 NW 166; Way v. Scott, 118 Iowa 197, 91 NW 1034; Goodwin v. Goodwin, 113 Iowa 319, 85 NW 31; Guion v. Giller, 101 Iowa 333, 70 NW 201; Seiffert, etc., Lumber Co. v. Hartwell, 94 Iowa 576, 63 NW 333, 58 AmSR 413; Bolton v. Oberne, 79 Iowa 278, 44 NW 547; Drake v. Painter, 77 Iowa 731, 42 NW 526; Harsh v. Griffin, 72 Iowa 608, 34 NW 441; Ottumwa. etc., R. Co. v. McWilliams, 71 Iowa 164, 32 NW 315; Lunt v. Neeley, 67 Iowa 97, 24 NW 739; Bruner v. Bateman, 66 Iowa 488, 24 NW 9; Goodrich v. Brown, 63 Iowa 247. 18 NW 893; Clay v. Richardson, 59 Iowa 483, 13 NW 644; Snoon v. Van Fossen, 53 Iowa 494, 5 NW 624; Garlock v. Baker, 46 Iowa 334; Stinson v. Richardson, 44 Iowa 273; Low v. Anderson, 41 Iowa 476; Morris v. Sargent, 18 Iowa 90; Burnap v. Cook, 16 Iowa 149. 85 AmD 507: O'Brien v. Young, 15 Iowa 5; Larson v. Reynolds. 13 Iowa 579, 81 AmD 444; Williams v. Swetland, 10 Iowa 51; Alley v. Bay. 9 Iowa 509; Goodrich v. Brown, 13 NW 309.

Kan. Walz v. Keller, 102 Kan. 124. 169 P 196; Norton Nat. Bank v. Duncan. 87 Kan. 610. 125 P 76; Johnson v. Samuelson, 69 Kan. 263. 76 P 867: Durand v. Higgins, 67 Kan. 110, 72 P 567: Matney v. Linn. 59 Kan. 613, 54 P 668; Wallace v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 54 Kan. 442. 38 P 489, 45 AmSR 288, 26 LRA 806; Hoffman v. Hill, 47 Kan. 611, 28 P 623; Dudley v. Shaw, 44 Kan. 683. 24 P 1114; Jenkins v. Simmons, 37 Kan. 496, 15 P 522 Howell v. McCrie, 36 Kan. 636, 14 P 257. 59 AmR 584; Schermerhorn v. Mahaffie, 34 Kan. 108. 8 P 199: Hafer v. Hafer. 33 Kan. 449. 6 P 537; Ott v. Sprague. 27 Kan. 620; Hogan Manners, 23 Kan. 551. 33 AmSR 199; Chambers v. Cox, 23 Kan. 393; Jamison v. Bancroft. 20 Kan. 169; Moore V. Reaves, 15 Kan. 150: Ayres v. Probasco. 14 Kan. 175; Helm v. Helm, 11 Kan. 19: Dollman v. Harris, 5 Kan. 597: Morris v. Ward. 5 Kan. 239: Locke v. Redmond. 6 Kan. A. 76, 49 P 670; Hill v. Alexander, 2 Kan. A. 251. 41 P 1066.

V.

Bank. 184 NW 1021; Rux v. Adam, 143 Minn. 35, 172 NW 912; Lindell v. Peters, 129 Minn. 288, 152 NW 648, AnnCas1916E 1130; Ekblaw v. Nelson, 124 Minn. 335, 144 NW 1094; Murphy v. Renner, 99 Minn. 348. 109 NW 593, 116 AmSR 418, 8 LRANS 565; Weitzner v. Thingstad, 55 Minn. 244. 56 NW 817; Law v. Butler, 44 Minn. 482, 47 NW 53, 9 LRA 856; Scanlon v. Óliver, 42 Minn. 538, 44 NW 1031; Jelinek v. Stepan, 41 Minn. 412. 43 NW 90; Alt v. Banholzer, 39 Minn. 511, 40 NW 830, 12 AmSR 681; Conway v. Elgin, 38 Minn. 469, 38 NW 370; Coles v. Yorks, 31 Minn. 213, 17 NW 341; Coles v. Yorks, 28 Minn. 464, 10 NW 775; Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183; Smith v. Lackor. 23 Minn. 454; Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299.

Miss. Blair v. Russell, 120 Miss. 108. 81 S 785; Yazoo Lumber Co. v. Clark, 95 Miss. 244. 48 S 516; Zukoski v. McIntyre, 93 Miss. 806, 47 S 435 [judg rev on suggestion of error 47 S 666]; Bolen v. Lilly, 85 Miss. 344. 37 S 811, 107 AmSR 291; Collins v. Bounds, 36 S 689; Hubbard v. Sage Land, etc., Co., 81 Miss. 616, 33 S 413; Johnson v. Hunt, 79 Miss. 639, 31 S 205; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Singleterry, 78 Miss. 772, 29 S 754; Gatti v. New Orleans R., etc., Supply Co., 77 Miss. 754, 27 S 601; Walton v. Walton, 76 Miss. 662, 25 S 166, 71 AmSR 540; Scott v. Scott, 73 Miss. 575, 19 S 589; McKenzie v. Shows, 70 Miss. 388, 12 S 336, 35 AmSR 654; Pounds v. Clarke, 70 Miss. 263, 14 S 22: Massey v. Womble. 69 Miss. 347, 11 S 188; Duncan v. Moore, 67 Miss. 136, 7 S 221; Cummings v. Busby. 62 Miss. 195: Howell v. Bush, 54 Miss. 437; Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50; State Nat. Bank v. Lyons, 52 Miss. 181.

Mont.-Watterson v. E. L. Bonner Co., 19 Mont. 554, 48 P 1108, 61 AmSR 527; American Sav., etc., Assoc. v. Burghardt. 19 Mont. 323, 48 P 391, 61 AmSR 507.

Nebr.-Alston v. Alston, 184 NW 82; Tyrrell v. Kelley, 104 Nebr. 555, 178 NW 206; Anderson V. Schertz, 94 Nebr. 390, 143 NW 238: Kimmerly v. McMichael, 83 Nebr. 789. 120 NW 487; Wilson v. Wilson, 83 Nebr. 562. 120 NW 147, 85 Nebr. 167, 122 NW 856; Thompson V. Foken, 81 Nebr. 261, 115 NW 770; Miller v. Paustian, 79 Nebr. 196, 112 NW 342: Koke V. Wolff. 78 Nebr. 504, 111 NW 134, 11 LRANS 99; Weatherington v. Smith. Mass.-Silloway v. Brown. 12 Allen 77 Nebr. 363, 109 NW 381. 124 AmSR 30: Doyle v. Cobern. 6 Allen 71; Smith 855, 13 LRANS 430; Teske v. Dittv. Provin, 4 Allen 516; Connor v. Mc-berner, 98 NW 57 [mod 65 Nebr. 167, Murray, 2 Allen 202; Adams v. Jen- 91 NW 181, 101 AmSR 6141; Norbury kins, 16 Gray 146; Richards v. Chace. v. Harper, 70 Nebr. 389, 97 NW 438; 2 Gray 383. Downing v. Hartshorn. 69 Nebr. 364, 95 NW 801, 111 AmSR 550; Interstate Sav., etc.. Assoc. v. Strine. 58 Nebr. 133, 78 NW 377; Morrill v. Skinner, 57 Nebr. 164, 77 NW 375; France v. Bell, 52 Nebr. 57, 71 NW 984: Prout v. Burke, 51 Nebr. 24, 70 NW 512; Horbach v. Tyrrell. 48 Nebr. 414. 67 NW 485, 489. 37 LRA 434; Whitlock v. Gosson, 35 Nebr. 829. 53 NW 980; Phillips v. Bishop, 31 Nebr. 853, 48 NW 1106; McCreery v. Shaffer. 26 Nebr. 173, 41 NW 996; Bets v. Sims. 25 Nebr. 166. 41 NW 117: Larson v. Butts, 22 Nebr. 370, 35 NW 190: Swift v. Dewey, 20 Nebr. 107. 29 NW 254; Aultman, etc. Co. v. Jenkins, 19 Nebr. 209, 27 NW 117; McHugh v Smiley, 17 Nebr. 626, 24 NW 277; Bonorden v. Kriz, 13 Nebr. 121, 12 NW 831.

Mich.-Zeigen v. Roiser, 200 Mich. 328. 166 NW 886; Liebetreu v. Liebetreu, 197 Mich. 668, 164 NW 430; Clement v. Buckley Mercantile Co., 172 Mich. 243, 137 NW 657; Cooper v. Cooper, 162 Mich. 304, 127 NW 266 Lott v. Lott. 146 Mich. 580, 109 NW 1126. 8 LRANS 748: Stern, etc., Co. v. Wing. 135 Mich. 331, 97 NW 791; Gadsby v. Monroe, 115 Mich. 282, 73 NW 367: Hammond v. Rathbone, 113 Mich. 499, 71 NW 858, 75 NW 928: Sammon v. Wood, 107 Mich. 506. 65 NW 529; Dikeman v. Arnold. 71 Mich. 656. 40 NW 42: Hall v. Loomis, 63 Mich. 709, 30 NW 374; Girzi v. Carey. 53 Mich. 447. 19 NW 139; Shoemaker v. Collins, 49 Mich. 595, 14 NW 559; Sherrid v. Southwick, 43 Mich. 515, 5 NW 1027; Watertown F. Ins. Co. v. Grover, etc., Sewing Mach. Co., 41 Mich. 131, 1 NW 961, 32 AmR 146: Stevenson v. Jackson, 40 Mich. 702: Wallace V. Harris, 32 Mich. 380: Amphlett v. Hibbard. 29 Mich. 298: Comstock v. Comstock, 27 Mich. 97: Snyder v. Peo., 26 Mich. 106. 12 AmR 202: Fisher v. Meister. 24 Mich. 447: Phillips v. Stauch, 20 Mich, 369; Ring v. Burt, 17 Mich. 465, 97 AmD 200 McKee v. Wilcox. 11 Mich. 358. 83 AmD 743; Dve v. Mann. 10 Mich. 291: Beecher v. Baldy, 7 Mich. 488; Wisner v. Farnham, 2 Mich. 472; Peo. v.

Nev.-Ely First Nat. Bank V. Meyers, 40 Nev. 284, 161 P 929; Ely First Nat. Bank v. Meyers. 39 Nev. 235, 150 P 308; Clark v. Shannon, 1 Nev. 568.

N. C.-Hall v. Dixon, 174 N. C. 319. 93 SE 837; Wittkowsky v. Gidney, 124 N. C. 437, 32 SE 731: Thomas v. Fulford, 117 N. C. 667. 23 SE 635; Fleming v. Graham, 110 N. C. 374, 14 SE 922; Hughes v. Hodges, 102 N. C. 236. 9 SE 437; Castlebury v. Maynard, 95 N. C. 281; Jenkins v. Bobbitt, 77 N. C. 385; Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C. 348.