-Claim and selection. Though, usually, occupancy for residence purposes is sufficient to give to land the homestead character,19 in some states it is necessary that the owner and occupant also put on record his claim of homestead rights in the property, and the exemption is not effective as against debts incurred before this is done.20

The procedure to be adopted in order to secure the exemption in case of issuance of execution against the owner varies greatly in the different states, there usually being a provision for the presentation by the owner of his claim of exemption, and a selection by him of the amount allowed by law from the premises occupied by him.21

-Transfer of the homestead property. The requirement which usually exists, that the wife of the owner join in or consent to any transfer of the homestead property, has been previously discussed.22 Subject to this requirement, the owner has ordinarily the right to transfer the homestead to the same extent as other property,23 and creditors cannot object to such tion in general tonus of a transfer or alienation by the husband alone has been held to apply to a transfer by will.32

18. Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 610, 21 L. Ed. 212; Edwards v. Kearzey. 96 U. S. 595; Tillotson v. Millard, 7 Minn. 513 (Gil. 419), 82 Am. Dec. 112; Homestead Cases, 22 Grat. (Va.) 266, 12 Am. Rep. 507; Dye v. Cooke, 88 Tenn. 275, 17 Am. St. Rep. 882, 12 S. W. 631.

19. Davis v. Day, 56 Ark. 156, 19 S. W. 502; Taylor v. Hargous, 4 Cal. 272, 60 Am. Dec. 606; Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584, 13 S. E. 749; Imhoff v. Lipe, 162 III. 282, 44 N. E. 493; Green v. Farrar, 53 Iowa, 426, 5 N. W. 557; Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn.

299; Riggs v. Sterling, 60 Mich. 643, 1 Am. St. Rep. 554, 27 N. W. 705.

20. See Goodwin v. Colorado Mortgage Inv. Co. of London, 110 U. S. 1, 28 L. Ed. 47; Drake v. Root, 2 Colo. 685; Timothy v. Chambers, 85 Ga. 267, 21 Am. St. Rep. 163, 11 S. E. 598; Wright v. Westheimer, 2 Idaho, 962; Threat v. Moody, 87 Tenn. 143, 9 S. W. 424.

21. See Waples, Homestead, c. 22.

22. Ante, Sec. 248.

23. Waples, Homestead, 469, 497. See Roger v. Adams, 66 action as being fraudulent as against them, since they have no rights against the homestead property in any case.24 Likewise, the land may, in the absence of express prohibition, be mortgaged by the owner, with the joinder or consent of his wife.25 By statute, occasionally, however, there is a restriction upon the right to transfer or mortgage the homestead. In one state, for instance, it can be mortgaged only to secure the purchase money or the cost of improvements.26

In most of the states the conveyance of the homestead premises, though it involves an abandonment of the homestead, does not give a right to enforce against the land in the hands of the purchaser a judgment which was obtained against the owner of the homestead during his occupancy.27

Ala. 600; Fishback v. Lane, 36 II. 437; Larson v. Reynolds, 13 Iowa, 581, 81 Am. Dec. 444; Wea Gas, Coal & Oil Co. v. Franklin Land Co., 54 Kan. 533, 45 Am. St. Rep. 297, 38 Pac. 790; Brame v. Craig, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 404; Greenough v. Turner, 11 Gray (Mass.) 334; Barton v. Drake, 21 Minn. 299; Kendall v. Powers, 96 Mo. 142, 9 Am. St. Rep. 326, 8 S. W. 793; Giles v. Miller, 36 Neb. 346, 38 Am. St. Rep. 730, 54 N. W. 551; Ketchin v. Mc-Carley, 26 S. C. 1, 4 Am. St. Rep. 674, 11 S. E. 1099; Astugue-ville v. Loustaunau, 61 Tex. 233; Moran v. Clark, 30 W. Va. 358, 8 Am. St. Rep. 66, 4 S. E. 303.

24. Winter v. Ritchie, 57 Kan. 212, 57 Am. St. Rep. 331, 45 Pac. 595; Tong v. Erfort, 80 Ky. 152; Castle v. Palmer, 6 Allen (Mass.) 401; Smith v. Rumsey, 33 Mich. 183; Bank of Versailles v. Guthrey, 127 Mo. 189, 48 Am. St. Rep. 621, 29 S. W. 1004; Roberts v. Robinson, 49 Neb. 717,

59 Am. St. Rep. 567, 68 N. W. 1035; Williams v. Watkins, 92 Va. 680, 24 S. E. 223.

25. Preiss v. Campbell, 59 Ala. 635; Low v. Anderson, 41 Iowa, 476; Jamison v. Bancroft, 20 Kan. 169; Hand v. Winn, 52 Miss. 784; Grimes v. Portman, 99 Mo. 229, 12 S. W. 792; Moran v. Clark, 30 W. Va. 358, 8 Am. St. Rep. 66, 4 S. E. 303.

26. Const. Tex. art. 16, 9 50. See Equitable Mortgage Co. v. Norton, 71 Tex. 683. And in Georgia any mortgage is, it seems, invalid, while a sale is valid only if approved by the court. Planter's Loan Savings Bank v. Dickinson, 83 Ga. 711, 10 S. E. 446. The prohibitions formerly existing in Arkansas and California against the alienation of the homestead property were repealed. Peterson v. Horn-blower, 33 Cal. 266; Brown v. Watson, 41 Ark. 309.

27. Bonds v. Strickland, 60 Ga. 624; Cummings v. Long, 16

The statute sometimes authorizes the proceeds of the sale of homestead premises to be invested in another homestead, which will be exempt from all the debts from which the previous homestead was exempt,28 and occasionally the proceeds of sale, pending such reinvestment, are exempt.29 The proceeds of a sale of the premises under order of court or by judicial process are also usually exempt to the same extent as the premises,30 and the proceeds of insurance on the property are, in some states, exempt.31

The statute does not usually prohibit a testamentary disposition of the homestead premises by the owner, but such right is frequently restricted by the provisions giving the surviving consort and children certain rights in the land. Occasionally, but not frequently, a prohibiIowa, 41, 85 Am. Dec. 502; El-well v. Hitchcock, 41 Kan. 130, 21 Pac. 109; Macke v. Byrd, 131 Mo. 682, 52 Am. St. Rep. 649, 33 S. W. 448; Giles v. Miller. 36 Neb. 346, 38 Am. St. Rep. 730, 54 N. W. 551; Vanstory v. Thornton, 112 N. C. 196, 34 Am. St. Rep. 483, 17 S. E. 566; Ketchin v. McCarley, 26 S. C. 1, 4 Am. St. Rep. 674, 11 S. E. 1099; Black v. Epperson, 40 Tex. 162; Seamans v. Carter, 15 Wis. 548, 82 Am. Dec. 696. Contra, Denis v. Gayle, 40 La. Ann. 826, 4 So. 3: Whitworth v. Lyons, 39 Miss. 468. And see the able dissenting opinion in Vanstory v. Thornton, supra.