Schuyler v. Broughton
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Homestead—Declaration — Statement of Value. — A statement in a declaration of homestead, as follows: “ We do place the value of said land at a sum not to exceed sixteen hundred dollars,” — is sufficient as a statement of its value to meet the requirements of section 1263 of the Civil Code.
Id. — Statute to be Liberally Construed. —The homestead statute is a remedial measure, and should be liberally construed.
Id. — Description of Property. — The description of land in a homestead declaration need not he more particular than in a conveyance. The description in this case held not void for uncertainty.
Searls, C. J. This action was brought by the plaintiff to obtain a judgment restraining the defendant (sheriff of Santa Barbara County) from executing a deed to the premises described in the amended complaint. The premises were sold by the sheriff by virtue of an execution issued on a judgment against W. II. Schuyler, the husband of the plaintiff, who claims said premises as a homestead, the homestead declaration having been filed before the said judgment was rendered. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the superior court, from which the defendant has appealed to this court.
It is contended by the appellant that the homestead declaration is not sufficient: 1. Because it does not state an estimate of the actual cash value; 2. Because the description is not sufficient.
The clause in the declaration of homestead as to value is as follows:—
[525]“And we do place the value of said land at a sum not to exceed sixteen hundred dollars.”
The fourth subdivision of section 1263 of the Civil Code requires the declaration of homestead to contain “ an estimate of their actual cash value.”
In Ashley v. Olmstead, 54 Cal. 616, this court held that a declaration of homestead which failed to contain any estimate of the value of the premises was void.
In Ames v. Eldred, 55 Cal. 136, it was held that a declaration which stated “ that the actual cash value is five thousand dollars and over ” did not contain an estimate of the actual cash value, and was therefore defective.
In Read v. Rahm, 65 Cal. 343, where the statement was “that the cash value of the said above-described premises is three thousand dollars,” it was held sufficient.
In Graves v. Baker, 68 Cal. 134, a statement in the declaration of homestead that “the cash value of the homestead is about four thousand dollars ” was held sufficient as a statement of value.
The statute in reference to homesteads is a remedial measure, and as such is to be liberally construed. We are not at liberty to disregard the statute; its provisions are binding upon us; and in the absence of a compliance with them, we can only declare the result flowing therefrom.
The concurrence of several things are necessary under our statute before exemption can be allowed. Where these several acts have been substantially performed, and where the declaration contains the essence of the statutory requirements, the construction should be so liberal as to advance the object of the constitution and statute.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)