SPIGENER v. CREWS

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

10102

Attorney(S)

Mr. Halcott P. Green, for appellants, cites: As to the right of appellants to have the funds in question assigned to them as heirs at law of the late Mrs. Marion E. Green, said funds being exempt under the homestead from the judgments rendered against Mrs. Green in her lifetime: Const. 1895, art. III, sec. 28; Code, p. 612; Code 1912, sec. 348, subd. 4; 25 S.C. 389; 28 S.C. 233; 26 S.C. 227; 107 S.C. 364; 51 S.C. 97; 73 S.C. 324; 21 S.C. 375; 2 S.C. 309; 54 S.C. 579; 99 S.C. 411; 45 S.C. 61; 73 S.C. 234; 19 S.C. 243; 24 S.C. 428; 29 S.C. 178; 26 S.C. 1; 54 S.C. 208; Civil Code, sec. 3714; 28 S.C. 234; 57 S.C. 526. Messrs. Lyles Lyles, for respondents, submit: 1. The Constitution of 1895, article III, section 28, only provided for a homestead "to the head of any family residing in this State," and the language of that provision as to persons entitled to the exemption is exactly the same as the language used in the Constitution of 1868, article II, section 32. "A person can claim homestead only against a debt of his own or of one whose family he is a member of. Children of a deceased debtor cannot claim, each for himself, as the head of a family, a separate homestead out of the lands of the deceased debtor against his debt; but collectively they are entitled to one homestead, whether they be infants or adults:" 25 S.C. 572; 51 S.C. 101.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

10102

Attorney(S)

Mr. Halcott P. Green, for appellants, cites: As to the right of appellants to have the funds in question assigned to them as heirs at law of the late Mrs. Marion E. Green, said funds being exempt under the homestead from the judgments rendered against Mrs. Green in her lifetime: Const. 1895, art. III, sec. 28; Code, p. 612; Code 1912, sec. 348, subd. 4; 25 S.C. 389; 28 S.C. 233; 26 S.C. 227; 107 S.C. 364; 51 S.C. 97; 73 S.C. 324; 21 S.C. 375; 2 S.C. 309; 54 S.C. 579; 99 S.C. 411; 45 S.C. 61; 73 S.C. 234; 19 S.C. 243; 24 S.C. 428; 29 S.C. 178; 26 S.C. 1; 54 S.C. 208; Civil Code, sec. 3714; 28 S.C. 234; 57 S.C. 526. Messrs. Lyles Lyles, for respondents, submit: 1. The Constitution of 1895, article III, section 28, only provided for a homestead "to the head of any family residing in this State," and the language of that provision as to persons entitled to the exemption is exactly the same as the language used in the Constitution of 1868, article II, section 32. "A person can claim homestead only against a debt of his own or of one whose family he is a member of. Children of a deceased debtor cannot claim, each for himself, as the head of a family, a separate homestead out of the lands of the deceased debtor against his debt; but collectively they are entitled to one homestead, whether they be infants or adults:" 25 S.C. 572; 51 S.C. 101.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

SPIGENER ET AL. v. CREWS ET AL.GREGORY-CONDER MULE CO.

January 1, 1919. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY.

This case involves the right of homestead. The facts are stated in the order of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, who denied such right.

The only case sustaining his ruling is Yoe v. Hanvey, 25 S.C. 94, which was overruled in Ex parte Worley, 54 S.C. 208, 32 S.E. 307, 71 Am. St. Rep. 783. In the last mentioned case the Court announced that the correct view upon the subject was expressed by Mr. Chief Justice McIver in Yoe v. Hanvey, supra.

Reversed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

SPIGENER ET AL. v. CREWS ET AL.GREGORY-CONDER MULE CO.

Comments