Byers v. Byers
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Jefferson District Oourt. Homestead not liable eor ordinary judgment for alimony. — In 1824, Thomas Byers (plaintiff) and Mary Byers (defendant) were married. Nine years since, the homestead property (forty acres of land), now in controversy, was acquired. In 1864 (after acquisition of the homestead) the defendant, Mary, filed her petition for a divorce, for what cause or when such cause arose, does not appear.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson District Oourt. Homestead not liable eor ordinary judgment for alimony. — In 1824, Thomas Byers (plaintiff) and Mary Byers (defendant) were married. Nine years since, the homestead property (forty acres of land), now in controversy, was acquired. In 1864 (after acquisition of the homestead) the defendant, Mary, filed her petition for a divorce, for what cause or when such cause arose, does not appear. In 1865, she obtained a decree .of divorce from the bonds of matrimony, and it was in said decree “further adjudged that Thomas Byers pay to the said Mary, the sum of…
1Opinion of the CourtDillon, J.
voboe^uS for alimony. All of the material facts are given in the statement. Upon these facts, we hold that the homestead was not -liable to sale upon the execution, and, therefore, the court erred in dissolving ^ ^junction.
We briefly state our reasons: The plaintiff is the head of a family, and did not cease to be such by reason of the divorce. Defendant, by the divorce, ceased to be a member of his family. The homestead law is intended for the benefit of the family, children as well as wife. If -there are children, the plaintiff, notwithstanding the decree of divorce, is bound to shelter and…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Biffle v. PullamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Lang v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Schooley v. SchooleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Hubbard v. EllithorpeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Daniels v. MorrisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.