As indicated in the preceding section, the homestead privilege generally continues in favor of the widow of the owner of the homestead property,5 and in some states, if the

3. Barber v. Babel, 36 Cal. 11; Smith v. Shrieves, 13 Nev. 303. See Freeman, Cotenancy, Sec. 49, where it is suggested that it would have been appropriate to call the joint interest, if any, a tenancy by entireties, rather than a joint tenancy, since neither party can affect its character by severance or suit for partition, as may be done in the case of a joint tenancy.

4. "The right or privilege [of homestead] has no single feature resembling a joint tenancy. The estate rests where it existed before the premises were appropriated as a homestead. The appropriation of them confers a right upon the wife to insist that their character as a homestead shall continue until she consents to the alienation, or another homestead is provided, or they are otherwise abandoned. The wife, if surviving her husband, takes the homestead, not by virtue of any right of survivorship arising from the alleged joint tenancy, but as property set apart by law from her husband's estate for her benefit and that of his children, if there be any." Field, C. J., in Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 472. See, also, as denying the existence of any estate in the wife in the homestead property during the husband's life, Wither-ington v. Mason, 86 Ala. 345, 11 Am. St. Rep. 41, 5 So. 679; Burns v. Keas, 21 Iowa, 257; Jenness v. Cutler, 12 Kan. 515; Pounds v. Clarke, 70 Miss. 263, 1 N. W. 362, Tidd v. Quinn, 52 N. H. 341; Creath v. Creath, 86 Tenn. 659; Godfrey v. Thornton, 46 Wis. 677,

14 So. 22.

5. Thompson, Homesteads, c. 11; Waples, Homesteads, c. 19;

15 Am. & Eng Enc. Law (2d Ed.) property belonged to the wife, it continues in favor of the surviving husband.6 Moreover, in some states there is a provision that the widow shall be given a homestead out of her husband's property, even though the husband himself had no "homestead," in the technical meaning of the word, this being frequently termed "probate" homestead.7

In some states, the homestead right of the widow-is merely a right to hold certain land against her husband's creditors in case the husband's estate is insolvent, without a right to any property, as against her husband's heirs,8 while in others the right may be asserted against heirs as well as against creditors, without reference to the question of debts9 In the latter case, the rights of possession and enjoyment of a portion of testator's land are taken from the heirs, and given to the widow for a certain time, and it may therefore be said, as is quite frequently done, that she has, by reason of her homestead right, an "estate" in

694. See Garland v. Bostick, US Ala. 209, 23 So. 698; Brokaw v. Ogle, 170 111. 115; Strong v. Garrett. 90 Iowa 100, 57 N. W. 715; Glover v. Hill, 57 Miss. 240; Freund v. McCall, 73 Mo. 343; Glover v. Glover, 45 S. C. 51, 22 S E. 739; Estate of Armstrong, SO Cal. 71, 22 Pac. 79.

6. Estate of Armstrong, 80 Cal. 71, 22 Pac. 79; Hensor- v. Moore. 104 111. 403; Burns v. Keas, 21 Iowa, 257; Ellis v. Davis, 90 Ky. 183, 14 S. W. 74; Roberts v. Greer, 22 Nev. 318, 58 Am. St. Rep. 755, 40 Pac. 6; Eubank v. Landram, 59 Tex. 247.

7. Waples, Homesteads, c. 20; Rottenberry v. Pipes, 53 Ala. 447; In re Vance's Estate, 100 Cal. 425; 34 Pac. 1087; Territory v. Bramble, 2 Dak. 189; Hodo v. Johnson,

40 Ga. 439; Coughanou. v. Hoffman's Estate, 2 Idaho, 267; Fletcher v. State Capital Bank, 37 N. H 369; Smith v. McDonald, 95 N. C. 163; Hatorff v. Wellford, 27 Grat. (Va.) 356.

8. Kemp v. Kemp, 42 Ga. 523; Rottenberry v. Pipes, 53 Ala. 447. Robinson v. Baker, 4 7 Mich. 619, 11 N. W. 410; Patterson v. Patterson, 49 Mich. 176, 13 N. W. 504; Hager v. Nixon, 69 N. C. 108; Barker v. Jenkins, 84 Va. 95, 6 S. E. 459.

9. Smith v. Boutwell, 101 Ala. 373, 13 So. 568; Nicholas v. Pure-zell, 21 Iowa, 265; Gasaway v Woods, 9 Bush (Ky.) 72; Monk v. Capen, 5 Allen (Mass.) 146; Mer-cier v. Chace, 11 Allen (Mass.) 1S4; Birmingham v. Birmingham, her deceased husband's land.10 The homestead interest or estate of the widow is usually, by statute, limited to her life,11 though occasionally she is given an absolute interest, equivalent to a fee simple, in her husband's homestead property.12

In some states her interest is inalienable,13 and in others it may be assigned.14

53 Miss. 610; Freund v. McCall, 73 Mo. 343; Spaulding's Appeal, 52 N. H. 336; Simpson v. Poe, 1 Lea (Tenn ) 701; Keyes v. Hill, 30 Vt. 760; Waples, Homesteads, 625; See Pore v. Fore's Estate, 2 N. D. 260. In Green v. Crow, 17 Tex. 180, it was decided to exist only in case there were debts, but that it could be asserted against heirs.

10. Brokaw v. Ogle, 170 111. 115, 48 N. E 394; Strong v. Garrett, 90 Iowa, 100, 57 N. W. 715; Holbrook v. Wightman, 31 Minn. 168, 17 N. W. 280; Birmingham v. Birmingham, 53 Miss. 610; West v. McMullen, 112 Mo. 405. ?0 S. W. 628; Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. v. Smassall, 38 Neb. 516, 57 N. W. 167; Lake v. Page, 63 N. H. 318, 1 Atl 113; Greer, v. Crow, 17 Tex. 180; Dooly v. Stringham, 4 Utah, 107; Day v. Adams, 42 Vt. 510. See Monk v. Capen 5 Allen ( Mass.) 146.

To the effect that there is no title or estate in the widow, but merely a right of occupancy, see Johnson v. Gaylord, 41 Iowa, 362; Hosford v. Wynn, 22 S. C. 309; Glover v. Glovor, 45 S. C. 31, 22 S, E. 739: Miller v. Marx. 55 Ala. 322; Neelev v. Margin. 124 Ark. 460. Ann Cas. 1918D, 77, 189 S. W. 182.

11. Weber v. Short, 55 Ala. 311; Strong v. Garrett, 90 Iowa, 100, 57 N. W. 715; Miles v. Hall, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 105; Smith v. Pro-Yin, 4 Allen (Mass.) 516; Holbrook v Wightman, 31 Minn. 168, 17 N. W. 280; West v. McMullen, 112 Mo. 405. 20 S. W. 628; Yoe v. Han-vey, 25 S C. 94; Fauver v. Flee-nor, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 622; Dcoley v Stringham, 4 Utah, 107.

12. In re Wixom's Estate, 35 Cal. 320; Weatherford v. King, 119 Mo. 51, 24 S. W. 772; smith v. Boutwell, 101 Ala. 373, 13 So. 568.