87. Kaster v. McWilliams. 41 Ala. 302; Maloney v. Hefer, 75 Cal. 422, 7 Am. St. Rep. 180, 17 Pac. 539; Ashton v. Ingle, 20 Kan. 670, 27 Am. Rep. 197; Evans v. Caiman, 92 Mich. 427,

31 Am. St. Rep. 606, 52 N. W. 787; Wade v. Wade, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 612; True v. Morrill's Estate, 28 Vt. 672; Casselman v. Packard, 16 Wis. 14, 82 Am. Dec. 710.

88. Gregg v. Bostwick, 33 Cal. 20, 91 Am. Dec. 637; Walters v. People, 18 III. 194, 65 Am. Dec. 730; Randal v. Elder, 12 Kan. 257; Secombe v. Borland, 34 Minn. 258, 25 N. W. 452; Perkins v. Quigley, 62 Mo. 498; Medlenka v. Downing, 59 Tex. 32.

89. Mason v. Columbia Finance & Trust Co., 99 Ky. 117, 53 Am. St. Rep. 451, 35 S. W. 115; Libbey v. Davis, 68 N. H. 355, 34 Atl. 744; Tyler v. Jewett, 82 Ala. 93, 2 So. 905.

90. Hodges v. Winston, 95 Ala. 514, 36 Am. St. Rep. 241, 11 So. 200; Gregg v. Bostwick, 33 Cal. 220, 91 Am. Dec. 637; Bothell v. Sweet (N. H.) 6 Atl. 646; Martin v. Hughes, 67 N. C. 293; Pryor v. Stone, 19 Tex. 371, 70 Am. Dec. 341; Hastie v. Kelley, 57 Vt. 293.

The quantify of land which may be held as exempt from the claims of creditors is limited by the statute, either as regards value or extent, and occasionally regards both,91 the limitation being frequently different, accordingly as the property is located in a town or city, or in the country, that is, accordingly as it is an "urban" or a "rural" homestead.92

The statutory limitation upon the pecuniary amount of the exemption has been in some states applied with reference to the value of a fee simple estate in the property, though the claimant of the exemption has only a less estate therein.93 and in some with reference merely to the value of his estate therein.94 The value of improvements is ordinarily to be included in the estimate,95 while the amount of incumbrances is deducted.96

Character of the claimant's interest in the land.

In determining the right to a homestead exemption, the character of the claimant's estate in the land is immaterial.97 A life estate in the land is, accordingly, suffi91. Waples, Homestead, c. 7.

92. See First Nat. Bank of Owantonna v. Wilson, 62 Ark. 140, 34 S. W. 544; Kiewert v. Anderson, 65 Minn. 491, 60 Am. St. Rep. 487, 67 N. W. 1031; Crilly v. Sheriff, 25 La. Ann. 219; McDaniel v. Mace, 47 Iowa, 509; Topeka Water-Supply Co. v. Root, 56 Kan. 187, 42 Pac. 715; Galli-gher v. Smiley, 28 Neb. 189, 26 Am. St. Rep. 319, 44 N. W. 187; Taylor v. Boulware, 17 Tex. 74.

93. Brown v. Starr, 79 Cal. 608, 12 Am. St. Rep. 180. 21 Pac. 973; Yates v. McKibben, 66 Iowa, 357, 23 N. W. 752; Arnold v. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 545; Franks v. Lucas, 14 Bush (Ky.) 395.

94. Hoy v. Anderson, 39 Neb. 386, 42 Am. St. Rep. 591, 58 N.

W. 125; Squire v. Mudgett, 63 N. H. 71; Bank of Columbia v. Gibbes, 54 S. Car. 579, 32 S. E. 690.

95. Vanstory v. Thornton, 110 N. C. 10, 14 S. E. 637; Lubbock v. McMann, 82 Cal. 226, 16 Am. St. Rep. 108, 22 Pac. 1145; Richards v. Nelms, 38 Tex. 445. Contra, under statute, Chase v. Swayne, 88 Tex. 218, 53 Am. St. Rep. 742, 30 S. W. 1049.

96. Hoy v. Anderson, 39 Neb. 386, 42 Am. St. Rep. 591, 58 N. W. 125; State v. Mason, 88 Mo. 222; Kilmer v. Garlick, 185, HI. 406, 56 N. E. 1103.

97. Waples. Homestead, 108; Tyler v. Jewett, 82 Ala. 93, 2 So. 905; Deere v. Chapman, 25 111. 610, 79 Am. Dec. 350; Johncient to entitle one to assert the right,98 as is a leasehold estate.99 A present right of possession is, however, necessary, and consequently an estate in remainder or reversion is insufficient.1

One may be entitled to the homestead exemption, though he has an equitable estate only in the land,2 as when he is occupying the land under a contract of purchase.3 It may be claimed in land subject to a mortgage, though this constitutes a mere "equity of redemption."4

In some states, a tenant in common may claim the exemption in the land so concurrently held, if he occupies it as a family residence,5 while in other states a contrary son v. Richardson, 33 Miss. 462; Sears v. Hanks, 14 Ohio St. 298, 84 Am. Dec. 378.

98. Steiner v. Berney, 130 Ala. 289, 30 So. 570; White Sewing Machine Co. v. Wooster, 66 Ark. 382, 74 Am. St. Rep. 100, 5p S. W. 1000; Deere v. Chapman, 25 111. 610, 79 Am. Dec. 350; Pender-gast v. Heekin, 94 Ky. 384, 22 S. W. 605; Kendall v. Powers, 96 Mo. 142, 9 Am. St. Rep. 326, 8 S. W. 793; Arnold v. Jones, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 545.

99. Conklin v. Foster, 57 111. 104; White v. Danforth, 122 Iowa. 403, 98 N. W. 136; Maatta v. Kippola, 102 Mich. 116, 60 N. W. 300; In re Emerson's Homestead, 58 Minn. 450, 60 N. W. 23; Cullers v. James, 66 Tex. 494, 1 S. W. 314; Beranek v. Beranek, 113 Wis. 272, 89 N. W. 146.

1. Murchison v. Plyler, 87 N. C. 79; Brokaw v. Ogle, 170 111. 115, 48 N. E. 394; Cornish v. Frees, 74 Wis. 490, 43 N. W. 507; Howell v. Jones, 91 Tenn. 402, 19 S. W. 757. But if the particular estate ends before a sale under execution, the exemption may be asserted. Stern v.

Lee, 115 N. C. 426, 26 L. R. A. 814, 20 S. E. 736.

2. Bartholomew v. West, 2 Dill. 290, Fed. Cas. No. 1,071; Hewitt v. Rankin, 41 Iowa, 35; Rice v. Rice, 108 111. 199; Doane's Ex'r v. Doane, 46 Vt. 485; Waples, Homestead, 117.

3. Alexander v. Jackson, 92 Cal. 514, 27 Am. St. Rep. 158, 28 Pac. 593; Myrick v. Bill, 5 Dak. 167, 37 N. W. 369; Stafford v. Woods, 144 111. 203, 33 N. E. 539; Lessell v. Goodman, 97 Iowa, 681, 59 Am. St. Rep. 432, 66 N. W. 917; McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 358, 83 Am. Dec. 743; Hook v. Northwest Thresher Co. 91 Minn. 482, 98 N. W. 463; Smith v. Chenault, 48 Tex. 455; Canfield v. Hard, 58 Vt. 217, 2 Atl. 136.

4. Fellows v. Dow, 58 N. H. 21; State v. Mason, 88 Mo. 222; Hinson v. Adrian, 92 N. C. 121; Doane's Ex'r v. Doane, 46 Vt. 485.

5. Wike v. Garner, 179 111. 257, 70 Am. St. Rep. 102, 53 N. E. 613; Thorn v. Thorn, 14 Iowa, 49, 81 Am. Dec. 451; Lozo v. Sutherland, 38 Mich. 171; Lewis view has been taken.6

Land owned by a partnership is, in a number of the states, not exempt from liability for the debts of a partnership because used by one of the partners as a family residence,7 though in other states it is exempt if all the partners assent to the claim of exemption.8 The right of one of the copartners to an exemption in his share of the partnership land as against an individual creditor might, it would seem, be decided with reference to the rule prevailing in the particular jurisdiction in regard to land owned in common, the right to such exemption being contingent upon whether he has himself occupied the land with his family.