Like acquisition by occupancy, loss by abandonment is in all cases a question of fact,329 and, in determining this, intention to re turn 330 and duration of absence are material points.331 Leasing the homestead to a tenant is not conclusive evidence of an abandonment,332 but acquisition of another homestead is.333 Some statutes provide that only certain named acts or a written ac329 Thomp. Homest & Exemp. § 218; Feldes v. Duncan, 30 111. App. 469; Loveless v. Thomas, 152 111. 479, 38 N. E. 907; Stewart v. Brand, 23 Iowa, 477; Orman v. Orman, 26 Iowa, 361; Potts v. Davenport, 79 111. 459; Brennan v. Wallace, 25 Cal. 108; Shepherd v. Casslday, 20 Tex. 24; Bradford v. Trust Co., 47 Kan. 587, 28 Pac. 702; Robinson v. Swearingen, 55 Ark. 55, 17 S. W. 365; Metcalf v. Smith (Ala.) 17 South. 537; Blackman v. Hardware Co. (Ala.)

17 South. 629. The removal must be voluntary, to constitute abandonment. So leaving the home for fear of Indian hostilities would not authorize the husband, before returning, to execute a mortgage without the wife joining. Moss v. Warner, 10 Cal. 296. Mere intention to abandon does not terminate the exemption. Dawley v. Ayers, 123 Cal. 108.

330 Moore v. Smead, 89 Wis. 558, 62 N. W. 426; Mcmillan v. Warner, 38 Tex. 410; Shepherd v. Cassiday, 20 Tex. 24; Gouhenant v. Cockrell, Id. 97; Potts v. Tavenport, 79 111. 455; Lazell v. Lazell, 8 Allen (Mass.) 575; Kitchell v. Burg win. 21 111. 40; Buck v. Conlogue, 49 111. 391; Titman v. Moore, 43 111. 169; Cory v. Schuster, 44 Neb. 269, 62 N. W. 470; Cooper v. Basham (Tex. Sup.) 19 S. W. 704; Campbell v. Potter (Ky.) 29 S. W. 139; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Schconmaker, 47 Kan 667, 28 Pac. 711; Gregory v. Oates, 92 Ky. 532,

18 S. W. 231

331 Fyffe v. Bsers, 18 Iowa, 7; Dunton v. Woodbury, 24 Iowa, 74; Cabeen v. Mulligan, 37 111. 230; William Deering & Co. v. Beard, 48 Kan. 16, 28 Pac. 981.

332 Herrick v. Graves, 16 Wis. 163; Austin v. Stanley, 46 N. H. 51; Campbell v. Adair, 45 Miss. 170; Wetz v. Beard, 12 Ohio St. 431; Pardo v. Bittorf,

48 Mich. 275, 12 N. W. 164; Wiggins v. Chance, 54 111. 175; Buck v. Conlogue,

49 111. 391; Myers v. Ford, 22 Wis. 139; Eckman v. Scott, 34 Neb. 817, 52 N. W. 822. But see In re Phelan's Estate, 16 Wis. 76; Fisher v. Cornell, 70 111. 216; Davis v. Andrews, 30 Vt. 678; Warren v. Peterson, 32 Neb. 727, 49 N. W. 703; Wynne v. Hudson, 66 Tex. 1, 17 S. W. 110; Malone v. Kornrumpf, 84 Tex. 454, 19 S. W. 607.

333 Woodbury v. Luddy, 14 Allen (Mass.) 1; Cahill v. Wilson, 62 111. 137; Carr v. Rising, Id. 14; Drury v. Bachelder, 11 Gray (Mass.) 214; Blackburn v. Traffic Co., 90 Wis. 362, 63 N. W. 289; Wood v. Hawkins, 60 Ark. 262, 29 S. W. 892. Cf. Davis v. Kelley, 14 Iowa, 523; Brewer v. Wall, 23 Tex. 585; Titman v. Moore, 43 111. 169. But see Ross v. Porter, 72 Miss. 361, 16 South. 906; Mcmillan v. Warner, 38 Tex. 410.

Knowledgment shall be evidence of abandonment.334 No premises can be a homestead unless they are used as such.335 A use of part of the premised for business purposes does not take away the exemption.336 Hut in most slates it is held that separate buildings rented to tenants will not be exempt, though they are on the homestead lot.337

Wavoer

The homestead may be made liable by an express waiver of the exemption at the time a debt is created, the waiver being made by the persons competent to sell the homestead.338 The wife must, however, join in the waiver to make it effectual.339

Alienation

A fraudulent conveyance of the homestead set aside by the husband's creditors does not estop the debtor or his wife, though she joined in the deed, to claim a homestead in the premises.340 This is, however, denied by some courts.341 The homestead right itself cannot be sold separately from the premises out of which the right is claimed.342 But most cases hold that the homestead premises may be sold and the grantee hold them against the grantor's creditors.343 In many states, however, the husband and wife must both execute the conveyance.344 In these states the husband's sole deed is void, and estops neither to claim a homestead;345 but

334 Dulanty v. Pynchon, 6 Allen (Mass.) 510; Doyle v. Coburn, Id. 71; Locke v. Rowell, 47 N. H. 4G; Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 533; Jarvals v. Moe. 38 Wis. 445; Faivre v. Daley, 93 Cal. 6G4, 29 Pac. 25G.

335 Hoitt v. Webb, 3G N. H. 158; Stanley v. Greenwood, 24 Tex. 224; Philleo v. Smalley, 23 Tex. 499; Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 154 (Gil. 124); Tillotson v. Millard, 7 Minn. 513 (Gil. 419); Grosholz v. Newman, 21 Wall. 48L A man can have only one homestead. Wright v. Dunning, 46 111. 271. In Texas there may be an exemption of a "business homestead," also. Leavell v. Lapowskl, 85 Tex. 168, 19 S. W. 1004; Webb v. Hayner, 49 Fed. 601, 605. But see Houston v. Newsome, 82 Tex. 75, 17 S. W. 603.

336 Kelly v. Baker, 10 Minn. 154 (Gil. 124); Phelps v. Rooney, 9 Wis. 70; Orr v. Shraft, 22 Mich. 260; Palmer v. Hawes, 80 Wis. 474, 50 N. W. 341; In re Ogburn's Estate, 105 Cal. 95, 38 Pac. 498; Groneweg v. Beck (Iowa) 62 N. W. 31. But see Rhodes v. Mccormack, 4 Iowa, 368; Garrett v. Jones, 90 Ala. 96, 10 South. 702.

337 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 113; Casselman v. Packard, 16 Wis. 114; Mcdonald v. Clark (Tex. Sup.) 19 S. W. 1023. Cf. Martin Clothing Co. v. Henly, 83 Tex. 592, 19 S. W. 167. But see Milford Sav. Bank v. Ayers, 48 Kan. 602, 29 Pac. 1149; Layson v. Grange, 48 Kan. 440, 29 Pac. 585; Burgher v. Henderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 522.

338 Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 384; Beecher v. Baldy, 7 Mich. 488; Hutch-ings v. Huggins, 59 111. 29; Ayers v. Hawks, 1 111. App. 600; Ferguson v. Kumler, 25 Minn. 183; Moore v. Reaves, 15 Kan. 150; Webster v. Trust Co., 93 Ga. 278, 20 S. E. 310. The proceeds of sale aie not exempt Mour-sund v. Prless, 84 Tex. 554, 19 S. W. 775.

339 so Ayers v. Hawks, 1 111. App. 600; Beavan v. Speed, 74 N. C. 544; Beech-544. Baldy, 7 Mich. 488.

340 Thomp. Homest. & Exeinp. 352; Cox v. Wilder, 2 Dill. 45, Fed. Cas. No. 3,308; Sears v. Hanks, 14 Ohio St. 298; Castie v. Palmer, 6 Allen (Mass.) 401; Smith v. Rumsey, 33 Mich. 183; Murphy v. Crouch, 24 Wis. 305; Mul-ler v. Inderreiden, 79 111. 382.