291 Succession of Norton, 18 La, Ann. 36; Allen v. Manasse, 4 Ala. 554; Meyer v. Claus, 15 Tex. 516; Black v. Singley, 91 Mich. 50, 51 N. W. 704.

292 Thomp. Homest & Exemp. 476; Bateman v. Pool, 84 Tex. 405, 19 S. W. 552.

293 Thomp. Homest & Exemp. 475; Miller v. Marckle, 27 111. 405; Williams v. Whitaker, 110 N. C. 393, 14 S. E. 924; Hoppe v. Hoppe, 104 Cal. 94, 37 Pac. 894.

Same - duration Of Exemption

64. The homestead right is an exemption:

(a) To the owner for life.

(b) To the surviving spouse for life, in most states.

(c) To the children during their minority, in some states.

The homestead interest or estate 295 is an exemption, on grounds of public policy, of a home to a debtor and his family.296 The exemption continues in general for the life of the owner and of the surviving spouse, and until the minor children, if any, reach majority; 297 that is, during a life or lives, and the interest is therefore most closely allied to legal life estates, and possesses many of the incidents of such estates.298

294 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 476; Hoppe v. Hoppe, 104 Cal. 94, 37 Pac. S94; Sparkman v. Roberts (Ark.) 31 S. W. 742; Fields v. Austin (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 3S6; Hall v. Fields, 81 Tex. 553, 17 S. W. 82; Tate v. Goff, 89 Ga. 184, 15 S. E. 30; Vornberg v. Ewens, 88 Ga. 237, 14 S. E. 562; Lewis v. Lichty, 3 Wash. St. 213, 28 Pac. 356. But see Haynes v. Schaefer, 96 Ga. 743, 22 S. E. 327; Moore v. Peacock, 94 Ga. 523, 21 S. E. 144.

295 In some states the homestead is not treated as an estate. Mcdonald v. Crandall, 43 III. 231; Black v. Curran, 14 Wall. 463; Atkinson v. Atkinson, 37 N. H. 434; Robinson v. Baker, 47 Mich. 619, 11 N. W. 410; Browning v. Harris, 99 111. 456. But see Helm v. Helm, 11 Kan. 21.

296 Capek v. Kropik, 129 111. 509, 21 N. E. 836.

297 See post, p. 382.

298 Kerley v. Kerley, 13 Allen (Mass.) 286; Hunter's Adm'r v. Law, 68 Ala. 365; Jones v. Gilbert, 135 111. 27, 25 N. E. 566; Wilson v. Proctor, 28 Minn. 13, 8 N. W. 830. It is also an estate upon condition (see post, p. 169), namely, that it continue to be occupied as a homestead. Locke v. Rowell, 47 N. H. 46. Homestead also under some statutes resembles the common-law tenancy in entirety, since the estate goes to the survivor, and both husband and wife must join in a conveyance. See post, p. 337.

Same - in What Estates

65. Any estate in possession, legal or equitable, will support a homestead. Exception - In some states homestead cannot be claimed in joint estates.

The interest which the debtor has in the land which he claims as a homestead can, it seems, make no difference to his creditors.299 Accordingly, an equitable estate, such as an equity of redemption,300 or a contract to purchase,301 will support a claim of homestead.302 So, also, will a life estate,303 or a leasehold.304 As to estates in common, the cases are conflicting.305 Homestead rights in partnership realty are denied in most states.306 So a boo Cheatham v. Jones, 68 N. C. 153; Doane v. Doane, 46 Vt 485.

299 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 144.

30l Mckee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358; Fyffe v. Beers, 18 Iowa, 11; Bartholomew v. West, 2 Dill. 203, Fed. Cas. No. 1.071.

302 Wilder v. Haughey, 21 Minn. 102; Mckee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358; Blue v. Blue, 38 111. 0; Allen v. Hawley, 66 111. 1G4; Bartholomew v. West, 2 Dill. 290, Fed. Cas. No. 1,071; Mccabe v. Mazzuchelli, 13 Wis. 478; Orr v. Shraft, 22 Mich. 260; Alexander v. Jackson, 92 Cal. 514, 28 Pac. 503. Contra, Garaly v. Du Bose, 5 S. C. 493.

303 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. § 150; Deere v. Chapman, 25 111. 610; Potts v. Davenport, 79 111. 455. But that the widow cannot have a homestead in such estate, see Ogden v. Ogden, 60 Ark. 70, 28 S, W. 796.

304 Thomp. Homest & Exemp. § 152; Pelan v. De Bevard, 13 Iowa, 53; Conklin v. Foster, 57 111. 104; Johnson v. Richardson, 33 Miss. 462; Maatta v. Kippola, 102 Mich. 116, 60 N. W. 300; In re Emerson's Homestead, 58 Minn. 450, 60 N. W. 23. But a tenancy at will is not sufficient. Berry v. Dobson, 68 Miss. 483, 10 South. 45. And see Colwell v. Carper, 15 Ohio St 279.

305 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. § 156. For cases holding the affirmative, see Mcclary v. Bixby, 36 Vt 254; Horn v. Tufts, 39 N. H. 478; Hewitt v. Rankin, 41 Iowa, 35; Tarrant v. Swain, 15 Kan. 146; Smith v. Deschaumes, 37 Tex. 429; Williams v. Wethered, Id. 130. See, also, Greenwood v. Maddox,

27 Ark. 648. Contra, Thurston v. Maddocks, 6 Allen (Mass.) 427; Wolf v. Fleischacker, 5 Cal. 244; Ward v. Huhn, 16 Minn. 159 (Gil. 142); West v. Ward, 26 Wis. 579; Amphlett v. Hibbard, 29 Mich. 298; Ventress v. Collins,

28 La. Ann. 783; In re Carriger's Estate, 107 Cal. 618, 40 Pac. 1032. And see note to 12 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 519.

306 Thomp. Homest & Exemp. § 175; Kingsley v. Kingsley, 39 Cal. 665; widow cannot have a homestead in lands to which the husband was entitled in remainder.307 Title in the wife will give a homestead, though the husband be living;308 but each cannot claim a homestead.309

Same - amount of Exemption

66. The homestead statutes limit the amount of exemption either:

(a) By the number of acres;

(b) By the value of the premises; or

(c) By both.

67. The limitation is different in many states for:

(a) Urban homesteads, and

(b) Rural homesteads.

In all states the amount of which the homestead may consist is limited, either as to the number of acres, or the value of the premises, or both. Under limitations according to value, the value of improvements is added to the bare value of the land in estimating the exemption.310 The amount of the homestead exemption depends, under most statutes, on whether the homestead is urban or rural,-the former meaning a home in a town or city, and the latter a home in the country, with land used in agricultural pursuits.311 But the fact that the land is within the corporate limits

Rhodes v. Williams, 12 Nev. 20; Drake v. Moore, 66 Iowa, 58, 23 N. W. 263; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 69 Iowa, 174, 28 N. W. 500; Chalfant v. Grant, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 118. Contra, Hewitt v. Rankin, 41 Iowa, 35; West v. Ward, 26 Wis. 579; Mcmillan v. Parker, 109 N. C. 252, 13 S. E. 764.

307 Howell v. Jones. 91 Tenn. 402, 19 S. W. 757. But see Stern v. Lee, 115 N. C. 426, 20 S. E. 736.

308 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. § 184; Orr v. Shraft, 22 Mich. 260; Crane v. Waggoner, 33 Ind. 83; Tourville v. Pierson, 39 III. 446; Partee v. Stewart, 50 Miss. 717; Murray v. Sells, 53 Ga. 257; Herdman v. Cooper, 39 111. App. 330.

309 Tourville v. Pierson, 39 111. 447; Gambette v. Brock, 41 Cal. 84; Mc-adoo, J., in Holliman v. Smith, 39 Tex. 362.

310 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 100; Williams v. Jenkins, 25 Tex. 306; Van-story v. Thornton, 110 N. C. 10, 14 S. E. 637. Contra, Swayne v. Chase, (Tex. Sup.) 30 S. W. 1049.

311 The husband cannot, without the wife's consent, change a rural into of a town or city does not make it an urban homestead, if it is used for agricultural purposes.312 Some cases hold that the homestead may consist of parcels of land not contiguous,313 but this is denied in others.314

Same - how Acquired

68. The homestead exemption is acquired by occupancy of the premises as a home. In some states there must also be a recorded notice that the premises are claimed as a homestead.