This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1883 edition. Excerpt: ...as by an abandonment or absolute sale. Nevertheless, as complainants would be entitled to have this deed enforced, and whatever right the trustee obtained sold, and the purchaser would be entitled to possession, as between him and Fowlkes and wife and the trustee, the result would be, that the trust being compelled to be executed, the homestead would then be extinguished, and thus the purchaser under the first deed would get the benefit of the extinguishment. It would be a useless expense and form to make such a sale, by which the purchaser would get nothing. It seems somewhat contradictory, at first thought, that a party claiming under a deed from the husband alone, which did not carry the homestead, should get the benefit of that homestead by a conveyance subsequently made of. the homestead by husband and wife, and the conveyee get nothing. But this is probably the only logical result of our cases, which go on the theory that the homestead is not an estate in the land, but a mere right of occupancy or exemption, and, when voluntarily abandoned, or parted with as required by law, ceases to exist. This being so, a party having a prior conveyance of the land subject to homestead, would necessarily hold under that title freejfroni the homestead, subsequently abandoned or conveyed, or released by the wife joining in a deed with her husband. The enforcement ot this second deed of trust necessarily extinguishes the homestead right conveyed by Fowlkes and wife, and its enforcement is the right of the other parties secured in the first deed. The result is the chancellor's decree, dismissing complainants' bill, is reversed; the costs of this court to be paid by complainants, the costs below as adjudged by the chancellor. by the acre;...