Lawson v. Hammond

• Decision Date: 22 May 1906
• Parties: LAWSON v. HAMMOND.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

94 S.W. 313

119 Mo. App. 480

LAWSON v. HAMMOND.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 22, 1906.

HOMESTEAD—ABANDONMENT—EVIDENCE.

Evidence examined, and held to support a finding that a judgment debtor did not abandon his homestead by removing therefrom, so as to deprive him of the right to claim his execution thereof.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ralls County; John Megown, Special Judge.

Action by Isaac N. Lawson against Reed M. Hammond. From a judgment sustaining a motion to quash the levy of an execution, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

G. W. Whitecotton, for appellant. E. W. Nelson, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a motion filed by the defendant to quash the levy of an execution. The writ had been levied on a farm in Ralls county as the property of defendant. The ground of the motion to quash was that the farm was defendant's homestead. This court transferred the cause to the Supreme Court, on the supposition that it involved the title to real estate, but it was remanded by the Supreme Court (90 S. W. 431) for our determination. We based our order of transfer on two decisions of the Supreme Court—McAnaw v. Matthis, 129 Mo. 142, 31 S. W. 344, and Stinson v. Call, 163 Mo. 323, 63 S. W. 729. These decisions were disapproved in the present case. Lawson v. Hammond, 191 Mo. 522, 90 S. W. 431.

It is assigned for error that defendant put in evidence no deed conveying the property in question to him, and hence his claim that it was his homestead and exempt from execution should not have been allowed. This assignment invokes the statute which provides that a homestead shall be subject to attachment and levy of execution for all causes of action existing at the time it was acquired, and that the date of its acquisition is the date of the filing for record of the claimant's deed to it, if he holds title under a deed, or, when he holds title by descent or devise, from the time the title became vested in him. Rev. St. 1899, § 3622. The record is silent as to whether defendant's title to the premises was acquired by grant, devise, or inheritance. In other particulars the record is quite incomplete, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court. It contains neither plaintiff's judgment, nor the execution issued on it. Hence, as there is nothing to show the date of the judgment or of the accrual of plaintiff's demand, or the date when defendant acquired his homestead, no comparison of the dates is possible in order to determine if the land is exempt from execution for plaintiff's demand. The Supreme Court stated that only because of the concessions made by the counsel of the respective parties in their briefs, could some matters essential to the determination of...