Grosholz v. Newman
Supreme Court of the United States
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas. By the constitution of Texas, on the subject of “ The Homestead,” it is ordained that “ the owner thereof, if a married man, shall not be at liberty to alienate the same unless by the consent of the wife,” &c.* With the abovementioned provision of the constitution of Texas in force, one Gustavus Kirohberg, a blacksmith, and Catherine, his wife, went from Pennsylvania, A.D. 1849, to the city of Austin, Texas,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas. By the constitution of Texas, on the subject of “ The Homestead,” it is ordained that “ the owner thereof, if a married man, shall not be at liberty to alienate the same unless by the consent of the wife,” &c.* With the abovementioned provision of the constitution of Texas in force, one Gustavus Kirohberg, a blacksmith, and Catherine, his wife, went from Pennsylvania, A.D. 1849, to the city of Austin, Texas, and immediately bought lot 6 in block 111 in the city named. On the east or Avenue side of the lot they soon built a…
1Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE
delivered the opinion of the court.
The first objection alleged against the deed which the complainants ask to have cancelled is, that it was made for the purpose of conveying a part of the homestead of the Kirchbergs, and, as such, was void because the wife did not joiu with the husband in its execution.
It is admitted that the deed was good, if the lots described in it were not, in fact, a part of the homestead at the time of its execution. It rests upon the complainants, therefore, to prove that they were. To do this it must be made to appear that they -were actually used,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Blight's Lessee v. RochesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
3Cited by1 opinion
- Grosholz v. NewmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1874