Snelling v. Butler
| Decision Date | 05 December 1911 |
| Citation | 119 P. 3,66 Wash. 165 |
| Parties | SNELLING et ux. v. BUTLER, Sheriff. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Wahkiakum County; A. E. Rice Judge.
Action by E. S. Snelling and wife against D. C. Butler, as Sheriff of Wahkiakum County. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Willett & Oleson, for appellant.
N. H Bloomfield and E. S. Snelling, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment granting a permanent injunction against the sale of real property upon execution. The facts are as follows: On August 12, 1909, one Bailey obtained a judgment against the respondents in the superior court of Wahkiakum county for $350, with interest and costs. The respondents then owned, and with their two minor children resided upon, lots 6, 7, and 8, in block 6, of the town of Athens, in that county. On September 14, 1910, the respondents executed and filed their declaration of homestead upon the property conformably to the statute. Two days later the judgment creditor caused a writ of execution to issue for the enforcement of the judgment. The writ was placed in the hands of the sheriff of that county, who levied upon the property and advertised its sale. The answer admits that the property is of less value than $2,000. The judgment was entered upon the respondents' unsecured promissory note. The debt is not secured by mechanic's, laborer's materialman's, or vendor's lien upon the premises.
Upon these facts the appellant asks for a reversal of the judgment, under the authority of Hookway v. Thompson, 56 Wash. 57, 105 P. 153. We do not think that case has any application to the case at bar. In that case a married man executed a mortgage upon his separate real estate to secure the payment of a contemporaneous loan. Later the wife filed her declaration of homestead, under the provisions of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 530. In discussing the case we said, in substance, that under the statute the homestead is brought into being by the filing of a homestead declaration, and that it exists and speaks from that time only and has no retroactive force. We adhere to that view of the law. This case is controlled by other provisions of the statute. Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 532, 533, provide:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahalko v. Arctic Trading Co., Inc.
...Security Nat'l Bank v. Mason, 117 Wash. 95, 200 P. 1097 (1921); Kenyon v. Erskine, 69 Wash. 110, 124 P. 392 (1912); Snelling v. Butler, 66 Wash. 165, 119 P. 3 (1911). Even where there is excess value upon which to execute, we hold the creditor must proceed under the homestead act. Kenyon, a......
-
Traverso v. Cerini
... ... upon which there was a valid homestead claim could be ... enjoined in a suit brought for that purpose. Snelling v ... Butler, 66 Wash. 165, 119 P. 3; Kenyon v ... Erskine, 69 Wash. 110, 124 P. 392. We have held that the ... confirmation of a ... ...
-
Paulson v. Hurlburt
... ... this superseded the lien of the judgment and made it ... nonenforceable. Another Washington case is Snelling v ... Butler, 66 Wash. 165, 119 P. 3. In that instance, after ... judgment in an action at law against them, the defendants ... ...
-
In re Burnham
...196 U.S. 516, 25 Sup.Ct. 306, 49 L.Ed. 577; Hewit v. Berlin Mach. Works, 194 U.S. 296, 24 Sup.Ct. 690, 48 L.Ed. 986; Snelling et al. v. Butler, 66 Wash. 165, 119 P. 3; sections 529, 533, 534, and 559, Rem. & Bal. Code; 1040, 1041, and 1042, Remington on Bankruptcy; section 419, Loveland on ......