Legal Opinion

Lies v. De Diablar

California Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1859PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from the Second District, County of Santa Barbara. This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The bill alleges, that previous to the year 1846, Pedro Diablar (the mortgagor) and Tomasa Badillo were married according to the laws then in force in California. After the marriage, and previous to the year 1849, Pedro Diablar became seized of a certain lot of ground upon which he erected a dwelling-house, which was the home of the family.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Second District, County of Santa Barbara. This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The bill alleges, that previous to the year 1846, Pedro Diablar (the mortgagor) and Tomasa Badillo were married according to the laws then in force in California. After the marriage, and previous to the year 1849, Pedro Diablar became seized of a certain lot of ground upon which he erected a dwelling-house, which was the home of the family. That in the year 1852, Tomasa Badillo, wife of the said Pedro, eloped from her said husband, and lived an adulterous life. That at the time of her elopement…

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.

We think that the plaintiff below cannot maintain his claim, to subject to his mortgage, executed in 1854, the premises, (to the extent of $5,000 in value) for the reason that these were the homestead of the family. The adultery or abandonment by the wife did not divest the property of the character of homestead. It is not material when the title to the homestead accrued. It was within the competency of *330the Legislature to declare what property should be exempt from forced sale, and what should be the mode of its disposition, provided antecedent claims of creditors or others were not affected…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Whelan v. AdamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
  2. Johnston v. TurnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1874
  3. Gagliardo v. DumontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Thompson v. New England Mortgage Security Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  5. Howell v. BushMississippi Supreme Court · 1877

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API