| Wis. | Apr 29, 1919
Sec. 2983, Stats., provides as follows:
“A homestead to be selected by the owner thereof . . . and the dwelling house thereon and its appurtenances owned and occupied by any resident of this state shall be exempt from seizure or sale on execution, from the lien of every judgment and from liability in any form for the debts of such owner to the amount in value of five thousand dollars.” '
The section further provides that the exemption shall not be impaired by temporary removal nor by sale, but shall extend to the proceeds derived from such sale while it is held with the intention of procuring another homestead, and contains certain other provisions not material here.
Adjacent to the brewery at Waupun there was a house which was occupied by the defendant. Prior to July 1, 1916, the saloon and residence at Burnett were leased to
“After we-sold the beer [referring to the last sale at Wau-pun] I went into my property at Burnett in the saloon business and intended to move my family down there too, but the youngest child, two years of age, had pneumonia, and being very sick we could not move him. At that time, March 27th, I had a bartender and I discharged him and ran the business myself. I couldn’t move my family on account of sickness.”
The men who ran the business lived in the premises with their families, those who had families.
The question is whether or not, under the facts and circumstances, the land became the homestead of the defendant in a legal sense before the lien attached. In order to bring the property within the exemption there must, of course, have existed on the part of the defendant an intention in good faith to occupy the premises as a homestead; such intention must have existed prior to the time when the lien attached, and it must have been evidenced by some overt act indicating a purpose to make the premises a homestead. Scofield v. Hopkins, 61 Wis. 370" court="Wis." date_filed="1884-11-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/scofield-v-hopkins-6604520?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6604520">61 Wis. 370, 21 N. W. 259; The defendant had no other homestead.
It is argued that there is no overt act which evidences an intention on the part of the defendant to make the property in question his homestead. We think the discharge of the bartender, which required him to move his family from the premises so that they could be occupied by the defendant, together with the taking over of the business by the defendant, is sufficient evidence of his intention, and under all the circumstances an overt act within the meaning of the law.
It is also argued that the fact that the defendant took charge of the saloon is not significant, because he may have intended to run the business until the license expired, and
By the Court. — Order affirmed.