341 Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. Go (Gil. 27); Getzler v. Saroni, 18 111. 511; Huey's Appeal, 29 Pa. St. 219.

342 Mcdonald v. Crandall, 43 111. 231; Chamberlain v. Lyell, 3 Mich. 458; Hewitt v. Templeton, 48 111. 367; Bowyer's Appeal, 21 Pa. St. 210.

343 Green v. Marks, 25 111. 225; Fishback v. Lane, 36 111. 437; Lamb v. Shays, 14 Iowa, 567; Morris v. Ward, 5 Kan. 239; C. Aultman & Co. v. Salinas (S. C.) 22 S. E 465. This is the rule in states where judgments against the owner are not liens upon the homestead, but in other states such judgments are liens which remain in abeyance while the homestead right exists. The latter rule prevents a sale of the homestead, except sub ject to such judgment liens. Folsom v. Carli, 5 Minn. 333 (Gil. 264); Til-lotson v. Millard, 7 Minn. 513 (Gil. 419). See, also, Hoyt v. Howe, 3 Wis. 752; Allen v. Cook, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 374; Jackson v. Allen, 30 Ark. 110.

344 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 401; Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 106; Ring v. Burt, 17 Mich. 465; Wallace v. Insurance Co., 54 Kan. 442, 38 Pac. 489. So a contract to convey must be signed by the wife. Ring v. Burt, 17 Mich. 465. The rule does not apply to conveyances to the wife and children. Riehl v. Blngenheimer, 28 Wis. 84. See, also, Castle v. Palmer, 6 Allen (Mass.) 401; Malony v. Horan, 12 Abb. Prac. N. S. (N. Y.) 289; Turner v. Bernheimer, 95 Ala. 241, 10 South. 750. Cf., however, Barrows v. Barrows, 138 111. 649, 28 N. E. 983.

The statutes usually provide for acknowledgment by the wife separate and apart from the husband. Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 523-532; Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C. 348.

345 Dye v. Mann, 10 Mich. 291; Amphlett v. Hibbard, 29 Mich. 298; Richards v. Chace, 2 Gray (Mass.) 383; Williams v. Starr, 5 Wis. 534; Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299; Wea Gas, Coal & Oil Co. v. Franklin Land Co., 54 Kan. 533, 38 Pac. 790. It Is void even as to the husband. Beecher v. Baldy, 7 Mich. 488; Phillips v. Stauch, 20 Mich. 369; Myers v. Evans, 81 Tex. 317, 16 S. W. 1060. Such a conveyance Is valid as to any excess over where the conveyance is to secure a privileged debt,346 or if the homestead has not been selected, the conveyance is good, because as to such debts there is no homestead exemption.347 And some cases hold that the husband's deed becomes operative by a subsequent abandonment of the premises as a homestead.348

Same - privileged Debts

71. The homestead is exempt from liability for all debts, except:

(a) Public debts, in most cases.

(b) Liabilities for torts, in some states.

(c) Debts contracted before the passage of the homestead law.

(d) Debts contracted and liens attaching before the acquisition of the homestead, in many states.

(e) Debts contracted in removing incumbrances, in a few states.

(f) Liens for the creation, improvement, or preservation of the property, in many states.

From most debts of the owner a homestead is exempt,349 but some debts are privileged, and these are enforceable against the the amount of the homestead. Halt v. Houle, 19 Wis. 472; Ring v. Burt, 17 Mich. 465; Wallace v. Harris, 32 Mich. 398; Boyd v. Cudderback, 31 111. 113; Smith v. Miller, Id. 157; Black v. Lusk, 69 111. 70. See, also, Smith v. Provln, 4 Allen (Mass.) 516.

346Burnside v. Terry, 51 Ga. I86. In some states, the husband may convey the reversionary interest in his homestead. Gilbert v. Cowan, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 203.

347 People v. Plumsted, 2 Mich. 465; Homestead Ass'n v. Enslow, 7 S. C. 1. And see Wynne v. Hudson, 66 Tex. 1, 17 S. W. 110; Chicago, T. & M. C. Ry. Co. v. Titterington, 84 Tex. 218, 19 S. W. 472.

348 Brown v. Coon, 36 111. 243; Mcdonald v. Crandall, 43 111. 231; Vasey v. Trustees, 59 111. 188; Jordan v. Godman, 19 Tex. 273.

349 Ayres v. Grill, 85 Iowa, 720, 51 N. W. 14; Perry v. Ross, 104 Cal. 15, 37 Pac. 757; Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223, 19 S. W. 423; Webb v. Hayner, 49 Fed. 601, 605; Walters v. Association, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 500, 29 S. W. 51; Hofman v. Demple, 53 Kan. 792, 37 Pac. 976.

Homestead.350 Most cases hold that the land cannot be sold subject to the homestead during the time the homestead exists.351 The homestead is not exempt from taxes;352 but as to other public debts, such as fines for public offenses or liability on official bonds, the rule is not uniform.353 The statutes of some states make the homestead subject to liability for torts and for the costs of such actions.354 Debts contracted before the passage of a homestead act are privileged in all cases, since otherwise the constitutional prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts would be infringed.355 Debts contracted prior to the acquisition of the homestead and liens so attaching 356 are in most states enforceable against the homestead.357 They include debts for unpaid purchase mcney,358 and vendors' liens for the same.359 A

350 Sfce Thorup. Homest. & Exemp. p. 246.

351 Thomp. Homest. & Exenip. 511; Littell v. Jones, 56 Ark. 139, 19 S. W. 497 Cross v. Weare, 62 N. H. 125. In some states the homestead descends to1 the widow or children free from all claims of creditors, and so is not a life estate, but embraces the whole interest of the owner. Parker v. Dean, 45 Miss. 408; Fletcher v. Bank, 37 N. H. 369; Plate v. Koehler, 8 Mo. App. 396; Schneider v. Hoifmann, 9 Mo. App. 280; Lacy v. Lockett, 82 Tex. 190, 17 S. W. 916,

352 Davis v. Stale, 60 Ga. 76; Hubbell v. Canady, 58 I1l 426; Morris v. Ward, 5 Kan. 239; Com. v. Lay, 12 Bush (Ky.) 284. But see Higgins v. Bordages (Tex. Sup.) 31 S. W. 52.

353 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. p. 326.

354 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 321; Mclaren v. Anderson, 81 Ala. 106, 8 South. 188; Dunagan v. Webster, 93 Ga. 540, 21 S. E. 65.

355 Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610; Talley v. Thompson, 20 Mo. 277.

356 in some states a change of homestead is permitted, and the new homestead has the same exemption as the old. Mann v. Corrington (Iowa) 61 N. W. 409; White v. Kinley, Id. 176; Freiberg v. Walzem, S5 Tex. 2G4, 20 S. W. 60; Blum v. Light, 81 Tex. 414, 16 S. W. 1090; Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584, 13 S. E. 749; Green v. Root, 62 Fed. 191. But see Peninsular Stove Co. v. Roark (Iowa) 63 N. W. 326. But existing liens are not prejudiced. Mabiy v. Harrison, 44 Tex. 286. Cf. Dalton v. Webb, S3 Iowa, 478, 50 N. W. 58.

357 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 253; Hensey v. Hensey's Adm'r, 92 Ky. 164, 17 S. W. 333; Titus v. Warren, 67 Vt. 242, 31 Atl. 297; Robinson v. Leach, 67 Vt. 128, 31 Atl. 32. But see Ontario State Bank v. Gerry, 91 Cal. 94, 27 Pac. 531; First Nat. Bank v. Bruce, 94 Cal. 77, 29 Pac. 488.

8 68 Toole v. Dibrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 387; Farmer v. Simpson, 6 Tex. 303; Stone v. Darnell, 20 Tex. 11; Barnes v. Gay, 7 Iowa, 26; Skinner

358 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 281. And see post, p. 192.

Statute giving a privilege to debts contracted in removing incumbrances means an incumbrance under which the homestead could be sold.360 Debts privileged because contracted in creating, improving,361 or preserving the homestead include, in general, the wages of clerks, servants, laborers, and mechanics.362 Improvements, within the meaning of such statutes, include only real fixtures.363