In some states occupancy alone is not sufficient to create a homestead exemption. It is required, in addition, that there be a notice recorded that the premises are claimed as a homestead, or the word "homestead" must be entered in the margin of the record of the title to the premises.323 It is, of course, necessary that the homestead continue to be occupied as such after the recording of the notice, or the exemption will be lost.324 v. Rowell, 47 N. H. 46; Phipps v. Acton, 12 Bush (Ky.) 375; Brettun v. Fox, 100 Mass. 234; Wright v. Dunning, 46 111. 271; Booth v. Goodwin, 29 Ark. 633; Johnston v. Turner, 29 Ark. 280.

317 Villa v. Pico, 41 Cal. 469; Lee v. Miller, 11 Allen (Mass.) 37; Titman v. Moore, 43 111. 174; Mccormick v. Wilcox, 25 111. 274; Reinback v. Walter, 27 111. 393.

318 Christy v. Dyer, 14 Iowa, 438; Williams v. Dorris, 31 Ark. 466; Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584, 13 S. E. 749. See, also, Grosholz v. Newman, 21 Wall. 481.

319 Lee v. Miller, 11 Allen (Mass.) 37.

320 Spaulding v. Crane, 46 Vt. 298; Mcclary v. Bixby, 36 Vt. 254; Dyson v. Sheley, 11 Mich. 527; Moerlein v. Investment Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 162; Bente v. Lange, Id. 813.

321 Hoitt v. Webb, 36 N. H. 158; True v. Morrill, 28 Vt 672. See, also, Kaster v. Mcwllliams, 41 Ala. 302; Elmore v. Elmore, 10 Cal. 224.

322 Kitchell v. Burgwin, 21 111. 40; Walters v. People, Id. 178; Potts v. Davenport, 79 111. 455; Herrick v. Graves, 16 Wis. 157; Jarvais v. Moe, 33 Wis. 440; Wetz v. Beard, 12 Ohio St. 431; Bunker v. Paquette, 37 Mich. 79.

323 Drake v. Root, 2 Colo. 685; Wright v. Westheimer, 2 Idaho, 962, 28 Pac. 430.

324 Gregg v. Bostwlck, 83 Cal. 220; Cole v. Gill, 14 Iowa, 527; Alley v. Bay, 9 Iowa, 509.

69. Selection-the homestead may be selected by the one claiming the exemption, or set off for him by order of court.

When the premises occupied as a home by a debtor exceed in area or value the exemption allowed by statute, the debtor may select the part which he will claim as his homestead. He may do so alter an execution has been issued against him, provided he has not made a selection previously.325 If the debtor fails to make a selection, the court will direct the sheriff or a board of appraisers to make one for him.326 In case division of the premises is impossible or inexpedient,327 in some states, the premises may be sold, and the amount which is exempt paid over to the debtor.328 For the details of the procedure, the reader must consult the local statutes.

Same - how Lost

70. The homestead right may be lost:

(a) By abandonment.

(b) By waiver.

(c) By alienation of the premises, in some states.

325 Mackey v. Wallace, 26 Tex. 52G; Davenport v. Alston, 14 Ga. 271; Kent v. Agard, 22 Wis. 145. Cf. Palmer v. Hawes, 80 Wis. 474, 50 N. W. 341. And see Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. 533. For the debtor's right to select in states where there is a limitation on area, but not on value, see Thomp. Homest. & Exemp. § 533; Tumlinson v. Swinney, 22 Ark. 400; Houston & G. N. R. Co. v. Winter, 44 Tex. 507; How v. Bank (Minn.) 03 N. W. 632.

326 Holden v. Pinney, 6 Cal. 234; Fogg v. Fogg, 40 N. H. 282; Gary v. Eastabrook, 6 Cal. 457; Myers v. Ford, 22 Wis. 130; Hartwell v. Mcdonald, 69 111. 203; Lute v. Reilly, 65 N. C. 21; Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223, 19 S. W. 423. And see Pinkerton v. Tumlin, 22 Ga. 165. For procedure In such cases, see Dillman v. Bank, 139 111. 2G9, 28 N. E. 946; Ducote v. Rachal, 44 La. Ann. 580, 10 South. 933.

327 Where the lower floor of a building occupied by a debtor as his home is rented for a store, partition may be made horizontally, and the part used for the store sold on execution. Amphlett v. Hibbard, 29 Mich. 298; Rhodes v. Mccormlck, 4 Iowa, 368; Mayfield v. Maasden, 59 Iowa, 517, 13 N. W. 652. But see Wright v. Dltzler, 54 Iowa, 620, 7 N. W. 98.

328 Dearing y. Thomas, 25 Ga. 223; Miller's Appeal, 16 Pa. St. 300; Dod-bon's Appeal, 25 Pa. St. 232; Chaplin v. Sawyer, 35 Vt 286.