Downey v. Wilber
| Citation | 117 Wash. 660,202 P. 256 |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 16475. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | DOWNEY v. WILBER et ux. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Wm. D. Askren, Judge.
Action by James H. Downey against R. E. Wilber and wife. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 198 P. 268.
Fayette J. Partridge, of Tacoma, for appellant.
Kelly & MacMahon, of Tacoma, for respondents.
On January 19, 1921, the appellant, Downey, recovered a judgment in a justice's court of Pierce county against the respondents Wilber for the sum of $64.82. On the 9th day of the succeeding month he caused a transcript thereof to be filed with the clerk of the superior court, and four days later caused an execution to issue thereon. The sheriff of the county who held the writ in execution levied upon property, which he described as 'one portable bungalow named Buena Vista,' and advertised the same for sale. The respondents thereupon filed a homestead claim upon the property, together with the land upon which the same is situate, and instituted this proceeding in the superior court of Pierce county to restrain the sale. At the trial the court found the property to be the homestead of the respondents, and exempt from execution, and entered a decree in accordance therewith.
The evidence adduced at the trial, while somewhat meager, shows with sufficient clearness that the building levied upon is a dwelling house in which the respondents reside, that the house is their individual property, and that it is erected on and attached to land which they hold under lease. Based upon the fact that the dwelling house is upon leased land, the appellant contends that there can be no homestead right therein. We cannot agree with this contention. The statute it is true, defines a homestead as the 'dwelling house in which the claimant resides and the land upon which the same is situated,' and in defining the property from which a homestead may be selected uses the terms 'his property' and 'her property' in referring to the property of claimant, yet it does not necessarily follow that the interest of the claimant in the property must be title in fee. Such a construction, we think, would be contrary to the purpose and spirit of the statute. Its purpose is not to give or confirm title in the claimant, but is to prevent a forced sale of the home; in other words, to secure the claimant and his family in the possession of his home. Seemingly, therefore, if a claimant has a sufficient interest in real property to entitle him to maintain a home thereon, he has such an interest as will entitle him to protection under the homestead statute.
While the authorities on the question are not entirely uniform, the great weight of the cases we think support the view indicated. These it is not necessary to review. They will be found collected in part in Ruling Case Law, under the title 'Homestead,' paragraphs 30, 32 and 33. For cases specifically holding that a leasehold interest will support a claim of homestead, see Hogan v. Manners, 23 Kan. 551, 33 Am. Rep. 199; Deere v. Chapman, 25 Ill. 610, 79 Am....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. Long
...derogation of such rights" (citing First Nat'l Bank of Everett v. Tiffany, 40 Wash.2d 193, 242 P.2d 169 (1952) )); Downey v. Wilber, 117 Wash. 660, 661, 202 P. 256 (1921) (noting that the purpose of the Homestead Act "is to prevent a forced sale of the home; in other words, to secure the cl......
-
Nw. Cascade, Inc. v. Unique Constr., Inc.
...Court interpreted the homestead statutes as they existed prior to the 1981 recodification that added the term “owner.”¶ 32 First, in Downey v. Wilber, a claimant owned a dwelling house on land he leased. 117 Wash. 660, 661, 202 P. 256 (1921). The claimant claimed a homestead exemption to th......
-
Felton v. Citizens Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Seattle
...not to deprive a declarant of the right to a homestead where another party also has an interest in the property. Downey v. Wilber, 117 Wash. 660, 202 P. 256 (1921); Desmond v. Shotwell, 142 Wash. 187, 252 P. 692 (1927); Swanson v. Anderson, 180 Wash. 284, 38 P.2d 1064 31 Wash.App. at 797-98......
-
Edgley v. Edgley
...not to deprive a declarant of the right to a homestead where another party also has an interest in the property. Downey v. Wilber, 117 Wash. 660, 202 P. 256 (1921); Desmond v. Shotwell, 142 Wash. 187, 252 P. 692 (1927); Swanson v. Anderson, 180 Wash. 284, 38 P.2d 1064 (1934). It was noted i......