Walters v. People
Illinois Supreme Court
This opinion of the court, was upon a rehearing of this cause, as reported on page 194 of the eighteenth volume of these Reports, where the facts are fully stated. The petition for a rehearing was filed by the defendants in error.
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The question to be determined is, how is the homestead to be occupied ? In the opinion pronounced in this case, (18 Ill. R. 194,) a definition was given by the court of the term “ occupancy,” which we approve. “ Occupancy ” and “ possession,” when applied to land, are nearly synonymous, and may in contemplation of law, exist in the same manner by and through a tenancy.
In the case of Kitchell v. Burgwin and Wife, ante, p. 40, we have said, that the debtor himself, to have the benefit of the exemption of the homestead, must show that it is the actual residence of the family, but it is not…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Budelman v. American InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1921
- Christy v. DyerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
- Campbell v. AdairMississippi Supreme Court · 1871
- Garibaldi v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Johnston v. TurnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1874
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.