History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gerrish v. Hill
66 N.H. 171
| N.H. | 1889
|
Check Treatment

The defendants' homestead right in the Enfield farm was extinguished by the conveyance of their interest in it and by their removal from it. G. L., c. 138, s. 1; Currier v. Woodward, 62 N.H. 63. Whether they had actually moved when the levy was commenced, and whether the value of the farm was more than $500 above the mortgage, is immaterial. The validity of their claim depends upon the existence of the homestead right at the time of the demand. As they had neither title nor possession when the demand was made, their application for a homestead was properly denied. Besides, the fact appears that the defendants were actually living upon, and had, a homestead in their farm in Franklin when they made the demand for a homestead in Enfield. The law exempts but one homestead at the same time. Horn v. Tufts,39 N.H. 478.

Homestead denied in the Enfield farm.

BINGHAM, J., did not sit: the others concurred. *Page 172

Case Details

Case Name: Gerrish v. Hill
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1889
Citation: 66 N.H. 171
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.