71. Kitchell v. Burgwin, 21 111. 40; Barney v. Leeds, 51 N. H. 253; Chamberlain v. Brown, 33 S. C. 597, 11 S. E. 439; Miller alone is not usually entitled to the benefit of the law,72 even though he supports others, if these others live apart from him.73 Id a number of states, however, it has been held that one who has been entitled to the exemption as head of a family continues to be so entitled, so long as he remains in possession of the same home, although he ceases to be actually the head of a family, owing to the death or departure of all the other members.74 The head of the family need not be a man ;75 nor need he or she be married.76 But a mere contract relation, as when one has only servants living with him, is not sufficient.77

During the husband's life, the wife is, by the construction placed on some of the statutes, excluded from the right to a homestead exemption, even in her own property, she not being the head of a family,78 while, r. Finegan, 26 Fla. 29, 6 L. R. A. 813, 7 So. 140.

72. Wilson v. Cochran, 31 Tex. 677, 98 Am. Dec. 553; Calhoun v. Williams, 32 Grat. (Va.) 18, 34 Am. Rep. 759; Rock v. Haas, 110 111. 528.

73. Rock v. Haas, 110 111. 528; Ridenour-Baker Grocery Co. v. Monroe, 142 Mo. 165, 43 S. W. 633. And see Pearson v. Miller, 71 Miss. 379, 42 Am. St. Rep. 470, 14 So. 731.

74. Silloway v. Brown, 12 Allen (Mass.) 30; Stanley v. Snyder, 43 Ark. 429; Stults v. Sale, 92 Ky. 5, 13 L. R. A. 743, 36 Am. St. Rep. 575, 7 S. W. 148; Wilkinson v. Merrill, 87 Va. 513, 11 L. R. A. 632, 12 S. E 1015; Doyle v Coburn, 6 Allen (Mass.) 71; Barney v. Leeds, 51 N. H. 253.

75. Brooks v. Collins, 11 Bush (Ky.) 622; Chamberlain v. Brown, 33 S. C. 597, 11 S. E.

439. And see cases referred to ante, note 70.

76. Arnold v. Waltz, 53 Iowa, 706, 36 Am. Rep. 248, 6 N. W. 40; Ellis v. White, 47 Cal. 73; Lane v. Philips, 69 Tex. 240, 5 Am. St. Rep. 41, 6 S. W. 610; Chamberlain v. Brown, 33 S. C. 097, 11 S. E. 439; Marsh v. Lazenby, 41 Ga. 154; Greenwood v. Maddox, 27 Ark. 649.

77. Calhoun v. McLendon, 42 Ga. 405; Garaty v. Du Boso, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 493; Ellis v. Davis, 90 Ky. 183, 14 S. W. 74; Whitehead v. Nickelson, 48 Tex. 517; Calhoun v. William3, 32 Grat. (Va.) 18, 34 Am. Rep. 759. But one having only a servant living with him was held to be a "housekeeper." Pierce v. Kusic, 56 Vt. 418.

78. Fuselier v. Buckner, 28 La. Ann. 594; Turner v. Argo, 89 Tenn. 443, 14 S. W. 930; Barry v. Western Assur. Co., 19 Mont.

Under other statutes, she is entitled to such homestead in her own property.79 Occasionally the wife has been held to be entitled to claim a homestead in the husband's land on the husband's failure to do so,80 or upon the desertion of the wife and family by the husband.81

Land in which the right exists. Since the purpose of the homestead law is usually to protect the family residence, only such land is ordinarily exempt thereunder as is occupied as such residence.82 This requirement of occupancy is not regarded as satisfied by a mere indefinite intention to occupy the land as a home in the future.83 But acts constituting a preparation of the premises for residence, coupled with an intention to reside thereon, are usually regarded as sufficient.84 The premises may, if partly used as a residence, be occupied in part for business purposes,85 or they may, according

571, 61 Am. St. Rep. 530, 49 Pac. 148. See Rosenberg v. Jett. (C. C.) 72 Fed. 90.

79. Crane v. Waggoner, 33 Ind. 83; Partee v. Stewart, 50 Miss. 717; Hill v. Myers, 46 Ohio St. 183, 19 N. E. 593; Ehrck v. Ehrck, 106 Iowa, 614, 68 Am. St. Rep. 330, 76 N. W. 793; McPhee v. O'Rourke, 10 Colo. 301, 3 Am. St. Rep. 579, 15 Pac. 420. See Kenley v. Hudelson, 99 111. 493, 39 Am. Rep. 31.

80. Bowen v. Bowen, 55 Ga. 182; Farley v. Hopkins, 79 Cal. 203, 21 Pac. 737.

81. Hollis v. State, 59 Ark. 211, 43 Am. St. Rep. 28, 27 S. W. 73; Moore v. Dunning, 29 111. 130; Cullers v. James, 66 Tex. 494, 1 S. W. 314.

82. Waples, Homestead, c. 6.

83. Grosholz v. Newman, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 481, 22 L. Ed. 471: Williams v. Dorris, 31 Ark. 466;

Greenman v. Greenman, 107 111. 404; Christy v. Dyer, 14 Iowa, 438, 81 Am. Dec. 493; Fant v. Talbot, 81 Ky. 23; Lee v. Miller, 11 Allen (Mass.) 37; Evans v. Caiman, 92 Mich. 427, 31 Am. St Rep. 606, 52 N. W. 787; Power v. Burd, 18 Mont. 22, 43 Pac. 1094; Currier v. Woodward, 62 N. H. 63; Fort v. Powell, 59 Tex. 321.

84. Gilworth v. Cody, 21 Kan. 702; Deville v. Widoe, 64 Mich. 593, 8 Am. St. Rep. 853, 31 N. W. 533; Hanlon v. Pollard, 17 Neb. 368, 22 N. W. 767; Cameron v. Gebhard, 85 Tex. 610, 34 Am. St. Rep. 832, 22 S. W. 1033; Woodbury v. Warren, 67 Vt. 251, 48 Am. St. Rep. 815, 31 Atl. 295; Shaw v. Kirby, 93 Wis. 379, 57 Am. St. Rep. 927, 67 N. W. 700; Waples, Homestead, 193.

85. In re Ogburn's Estate, 105 Cal. 95; Corey v. Schuster. 11 Neb. 269, 62 N. W. 470; DeFord to some decisions, be leased in part to others.86 But,. generally, occupation by a tenant is not sufficient to give the homestead exemption to the landlord.87

In some states one is allowed a homestead right in a tract of land adjoining that on which the residence is situated, provided, generally, that the tract is used in connection with the residence.88 And the exemption has been allowed in land adjoining, and used in connection with, the claimant's residence, without reference to his ownership of the latter, or to whether he has the same quantum of estate in both tracts.89 In some states the right of homestead extends even to land not adjoining the family residence, if used in connection therewith.90 v. Painter, 3 Okla, 80, 30 L. R. A. 722, 41 Pac. 96; Stevens v. Hollingsworth, 74 111. 202; Bebb v. Crowe, 39 Kan. 342, 18 Pac. 223; Phelps v. Rooney, 9 Wis. 70, 76 Am. Dec. 244. Contra, Johnson v. Moser, 66 Iowa, 536, 24 N. W. 32; Crow v. Whitworth, 20 Ga. 38.

86. Bailey v. Dunlap Mercantile Co., 138 Ala. 415, 35 So. 451; Lubbock v. McMann, 82 Cal. 226, 16 Am. St. Rep. 108, 22 Pac. 1145; Layson v. Grange, 48 Kan. 440, 29 Pac. 585; Mercier v. Chace, 11 Allen (Mass.) 194; De Ford v. Painter, 3 Okla. 80, 30 L. R. A. 722, 41 Pac. 96. Contra, Rhodes v. McCormack, 4 Iowa, 368, 68 Am. Dec. 663; Hargadene v. Whitfield, 71 Tex. 482, 9 S. W. 475; Casselman v. Packard, 16 Wis. 114, 82 Am. Dec. 710.