Meguiar, Helm & Co. v. Burr

• Decision Date: 01 February 1883
• Parties: Meguiar, Helm & Co. v. Burr.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

81 Ky. 32

4 Ky.L.Rptr. 659

Meguiar, Helm & Co. v. Burr.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 1, 1883

1. Two joint owners of a tract of land, upon which they both reside in separate buildings, are each entitled to a homestead.

2. The fact that no partition has been made is immaterial.

APPEAL FROM LOGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

JAMES H. BOWDEN AND CHAS. S. GRUBBS FOR APPELLANT.

The homestead exemption law of Kentucky gives to a joint tenant no exemption. In the language of the statute, the dwelling-house and appurtenances must be owned by the debtor. (Gen. Stat., ch. 38, art. 13, sec. 9; Thompson on Homestead Exemptions, 181, 182, 189; 6 Allen, 430; 101 Mass. 421; 5 Cal. 245; 26 Wisconsin, 580; 14 Bush, 385.)

L. C GARRIGUS FOR APPELLEES.

1. The courts of the several States have invariably given a liberal construction to statutes exempting homesteads.

2. As joint owners of the land, each of the appellees has his separate residence upon it, and if one be entitled, both must be so. (Central Law Jour., vol. 6, p. 155; 11 Mich. 358; 22 Ib., 261; 5 Central Law Jour., 275; 36 Vermont, 257; 14 Iowa 49; 39 N. H., 478; 51 Ib.; Barney v Leeds, 36 Texas, 663; Freeman on Cotenancy and Partition, sec. 54; Thompson on Homestead Exemption, secs 183, 187, and 188; General Statutes, secs. 9 and 16, art. 16 ch. 38; 37 Texas, 130; Ib., 429; 41 Iowa 35; 15 Kansas, 146; 27 Ark. 660.)

OPINION

PRYOR JUDGE:

In this case the two appellees held and owned a joint interest in a tract of land, made up of smaller tracts purchased by the two. They are the owners of the entire estate, and no partition has ever been made. The appellants, who are judgment creditors, are appealing from the judgment below, and say that the chancellor, in subjecting this land to the payment of their joint indebtedness, had given to each of the debtors a homestead, and this is assigned for error.

The question raised in this case has been decided in different ways by the courts of several of the States, but we think a proper and liberal construction of the statute of this State sustains this judgment. The purpose of the statute is to secure to the unfortunate debtor a home for himself and family; that his family may have a roof to shelter them although the parent may be involved in debt. Here the debtors are living in separate buildings, erected by each as a home for himself and family, and the only reason that can be urged against the right of exemption is, that the land has not been partitioned. If they had made an agreement marking the line dividing the joint estate, their right would be unquestioned, and it would be extremely technical, in the construction of such a...