Whittle v. Samuels

Decision Date31 July 1875
Citation54 Ga. 548
PartiesJames Whittle, plaintiff in error. v. Benjamin Samuels et al,defendants in error.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Homestead. Equity. Money rule. Subrogation. Judgments. Parties. Before Judge James Johnson. Talbot Superior Court. March Term, 1875.

Reported in the opinion..

Little & Crawford; BeandFord & Garrard, for plaintiff in error.

Willis & Willis; E. H. Worrill, for defendants.

Jackson, Judge.

Samuels and others obtained judgment against Walton in 1860, and levied the execution issued thereon upon a parcel of land in the village of Geneva, as his property. The land was sold and the money brought into court for distribution. It appears from the record that Walton had had a homestead set apart in this land, and died. After his death, his widow, with the approval of the ordinary, sold it to Baron. Baron's wife had a homestead set apart in it, and she and her husband sold it to Whittle, who claims $500 00 of the fund, because Walton, he says, would be entitled to hold that much of the fund under the.old exemption law, and because he is subrogated to all the rights of Walton. The court ordered *the money paid to the judgment creditors. Whittle excepted, and now assigns this ruling of the court for error.

1, 2. We think that the policy of the state, as gathered from the constitution and laws, is not to encourage the sale of homesteads. By the constitution it is made the duty of the general assembly to enact laws for the full and complete protection and security of homesteads to the sole use and benefit of the family of the debtor: Code, section 2135. The law enacted to carry out this constitutional provision, declares that such property shall be for the use of the wife, or widow, and children: Code, section 2020. The great object is to secure a fixed home for the family, and it is not the policy of the law to encourage the alienation of that home. Can the wife, after the death of her husband, sell it even with the approval of the ordinary, and does the title pass? Could Mrs. Walton sell to Baron, and if she could not, of course the title of Baron and wife to Whittle fails, and he has no rights of subrogation or otherwise. The law provides that the husband and wife may sell it: Co'de, section 2025, but we are not aware of any law which allows his wife to sell it after his death, though the executor of the husband join in the deed and be authorized by the will to do so; and we think the law in regard to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Ancell v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1909
    ...Some high authorities are certainly against the exercise of the power. Thompson on Homestead, sec. 551, pp. 466-67 (Ed. 1878); White v. Samuels, 54 Ga. 548; Roberts Trammell, 55 Ga. 383; Woerner's Am. Law Guardianship (1897), par. 3, pp. 250, 251; 56 L. R. A. 89. (3) Further reasons in supp......
  • Weatherford v. King
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1893
    ...In Georgia, although there is no law prohibiting it, it is held that a widow cannot alienate her homestead even after allotment. Whittle v. Samuels, 54 Ga. 548. C. Gallenkamp for respondents. (1) At the time of Burnell Weatherford's death, September, 1872, he being a head of a family, havin......
  • Pass v. Pass
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1942
    ...not prevent the grant of the homestead or exemption in the property before sale, or from the proceeds in court after sale.' In Whittle v. Samuels, 54 Ga. 548(2), was held: 'The policy of our law is not to alienate homesteads, and the statutes relating thereto will be strictly construed, and......
  • McLoy & Tritter v. Arnett
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1886
    ... ... The minor ... children, and after them the creditors, have rights which [47 ... Ark. 456] are endangered by every such transfer. Whittle ... v. Samuels, 54 Ga. 548 ...          This ... relieves us of the necessity of inquiring whether, prior to ... the act of February ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT