Debts to which the exemption extends. The existence of the homestead exemption has the effect, generally, of relieving the property from liability for the debts of the owner, but the statute frequently makes exceptions in favor of certain classes of creditors. The statute in almost all the states provides in express terms that the exemption of the land from liability for debts shall not extend to a debt to the vendor for the purchase price,9 and, apart from any such express provision, the v. White, 69 Miss. 352, 30 Am. St. Rep. 557, 13 So. 349; Giles v. Miller, 36 Neb. 346, 38 Am. St. Rep. 730, 54 N. W. 551; Clements v. Lacy, 51 Tex. 150; McClary v. Bixby, 36 Vt. 354, 84 Am. Dec. 684.

6. Wolf v. Fleischacker, 5 Cal. 244, 63 Am. Dec. 121; Ventress v. Collins, 38 La. Ann. 783; Thurston v. Maddocks, 6 Allen (Mass.) 427; Holmes v. Winchester, 138 Mass. 542; J. I. Case Co. v. Joyce, 89 Tenn. 337, 12 L. R. A. 519, 16 S. W. 147; West v. Ward, 26 Wis. 579.

7. Bishop v. Hubbard, 23 Cal. 514, 83 Am. Dec. 132; Trowbridge v. Cross, 117 111. 109, 7 N. E. 347; Drake v. Moore, 66

Iowa, 58, 23 N. W. 263; Michigan Trust Co. v. Chapin, 106 Mich. 384, 58 Am. St. Rep. 490, 64 N. W. 334; Terry v. Berry, 13 Nev. 514; Ex parte Karish, 32 S. C. 437, 17 Am. St. Rep. 865, 11 S. E. 298; Brady v. Kreuger, 8 S. D. 464, 59 Am. St. Rep. 771, 66 N. W. 1083; Chalfant v. Grant, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 118; Short v. McGruder (C. C.) 22 Fed. 46.

8. Hunnicutt v. Summey, 63 Ga. 586; Ferguson v. Speith, 13

Mont. 487, 40 Am. St. Rep. 459, 34 Pac. 1020; McMillan v. Williams, 109 N. C. 252, 13 S. E. 764; Swearingen v. Bassett, 65 Tex. 267.

9. Waples, Homestead, c. 11.

Land would usually be regarded as liable for such a debt, either on the ground of the existence of a vendor's lien, or by the construction placed upon the statute. But the exemption has been held to extend to a claim for money borrowed to pay the purchase price, this not being within the statutory exception in favor of purchase-money claims,10 though in some cases the view is taken that, if it is understood between the purchaser and the lender that the loan shall be used in paying the purchase price, the lender may enforce his claim against the homestead.11

There is quite frequently a provision that the exemption shall not exist as against debts incurred in improving the premises.12

Taxes likewise are usually made enforceable against the homestead, either by the terms of the homestead law or the provisions in regard to sales of land for taxes.13 Generally speaking, however, claims of the state stand upon the same plane as the claims of private individuals as regards their enforcement against the homestead property.14

10. Eyster v. Hatheway, 50 III. 521, 99 Am. Dec. 537; Dreese v. Myers, 52 Kan. 126, 39 Am. St. Rep. 336; 34 Pac. 349; Perry v. Ross, 104 Cal. 15, 43 Am. St. Rep. 66, 37 Pac. 757; Loftis v. Loftis, 94 Tenn. 232. See Nottes' Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 361.

11. Acruman v. Barnes, 66 Ark. 442, 74 Am. St. Rep. 104, 51 S. W. 319; White v. Wheelan, 71 Ga. 533; Warhmund v. Merritt, 60 Tex. 24; Nichols v. Overacker. 16 Kan. 54; Carey v. Boyle, 53 Wis. 574, 11 N. W. 47 If the loan and the purchase can all be considered one transaction, then the lender is, it seems, entitled to stand in the position of the vendor. Austin v. Underwood.

37 III. 438, 87 Am. Dec. 254; Dreese v. Myers, 52 Kan. 126, 39 Am. St. Rep. 336, 34 Pac. 349.

12. See Lewton v. Hower, 18 Fla. 872: McWilliams v. Bones, 84 Ga. 203; Hurd v. Hixon, 27 Kan. 722; All v. Goodson, 33 S. C. 229, 11 S. E. 703; Miller v. Brown, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 155; Butler v. Davis, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 273, 23 S. W. 220.

13. Higgins v. Bordages, 88 Tex. 458; Douthett v. Winter, 108 III. 330; Lamar v. Sheppard, 80 Ga. 25, 5 S. E. 247; Shell v. Duncan, 31 S. C. 547, 5 L. R. A. 821, 10 S. E. 330; Waples, Homo-stead, 327.

14. Central Kentucky Lunatic

In some states the statute is construed as exempting the homestead premises only from claims based on con tract, leaving them liable for claims arising from tort; this construction being placed on a provision exempting the premises from liability for "debts contracted."15 In some states the exemption is effective only as against debts incurred after the acquisition of the property, or after its occupation as a homestead, or after a formal declaration of an intention to claim the homestead rights.16

Liens which have attached to the land before its purchase, or before it acquired its homestead character, can be enforced against it.17

The exemption cannot be asserted as against debts which were contracted before the adoption of the law creating or enlarging the right, and under which the right is asserted, since the law, if given such retroactive effect, would impair the obligation of contracts, in violation of the United States constitution.18

Asylum v. Craven, 98 Ky. 105, 56 Am. St. Rep. 323, 32 S. W. 291; Fink v. O'Neil, 106 U. S. 272, 27 L. Ed. 196; Colquitt v. Brown, 63 Ga. 440; Ren v. Driskell, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 642; State v. Pitts, 51 Mo. 133. Accordingly, the homestead has been held to be exempt from sale under execution to satisfy a fine or judgment for costs in a criminal prosecution. Com. v. Lay, 12 Bush (Ky.) 283, 23 Am. Rep. 718; Fink v. O'Neil, 106 U. S. 272, 27 L. Ed. 196; Hollis v. State, 59 Ark. 211, 43 Am. St. Rep. 28, 27 S. W. 73; Loomis v. Gerson, 62 III. 11.

15. Whitacre v. Rector, 29 Grat. (Va.) 714, 26 Am. Rep. 420; Nowling v. Mcintosh, 89 Ind. 593; Burton v. Mill, 78 Va. 468; Lathrop v. Singer, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 396; McLaren v. Anderson, 81 Ala. 106; Davis v. Hen-son, 29 Ga. 345.

16. Waples, Homestead. 282 et seq.

17. Zander v. Scott, 165 III. 51, 46 N. E. 2; Bullene v. Hiatt, 12 Kan. 98; Robinson v. Wilson, 15 Kan. 595, 22 Am. Rep. 272; Meador v. Meador, 88 Ky. 217. 10 S. W. 651; Davis Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Whitney, 61 Mich. 518, 28 N. W. 674; Bunn v. Lindsay, 95 Mo. 250, 6 Am. St. Rep. 48. 7 S. W. 473; Pender v. Lancaster, 14 S. C. 25, 37 Am. Rep. 720; Dye v. Cook, 88 Tenn. 275, 17 Am. St. Rep. 882, 12 S. W. 631; Clements v. Lacy, 51 Tex. 150. So in the case of mortgage liens. Webster v. Dundee Mortgage & Trust Co., 93 Ga. 278, 20 S. E. 310; McCormick v. Wilcox, 25 III. 274; Gibson v. Mundell, 29 Ohio St. 523; Mabry v. Harrison, 44 Tex. 286; Spanieling v. Crane, 46 Vt. 292.