or wool factory, saw or grist-mill, or any other machinery propelled by water or steam, the value of which exceeds $200; and that such land shall not derive its chief value from other cause than its adaptation to agricultural purposes; or, in lieu of the above land, real estate in a city, town, or village, not exceeding $500 in value.

"2. One farm horse and mule; one cow and calf: ten head of hogs, and fifty dollars' worth of provisions, and five dollars' worth additional for each child; bed, bedding, and common bedsteads sufficient for family; one loom, one spinning-wheel, and two pairs of cards, and one hundred pounds of lint cotton; tools of trade for himself and wife; equipment and arms of a militia soldier and trooper's horse; cooking utensils, crockery, wearing apparel for himself and wife, family Bible, religious and school books, family portraits; the library of a professional man in actual practice or business, not exceeding $300 in value."

Upon the Constitution and the Act of 1868, and the Code (section 2013) which went into effect on the 1st January 1863, the Supreme Court of Georgia have delivered several decisions.

As to the Constitutionality of said Acts.-"Homestead and exemption laws, when made in good faith, to secure to the family of insolvent debtors a reasonable means of subsistence from the debtor's property, do not even, though retroactive, fall within the prohibition of Art. 10, sec. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of a contract: Hardiman v. Donner, 39 Ga. 425.

"The homestead provision of the Constitution of 1868 is retroactive, and applies to judgments, executions, and decrees, founded on debts contracted before its adoption, even though reduced to judgment before that time, and is without exception, save as therein provided:" Id.

"The Constitution of the United States does not prohibit a state from divesting a vested right, except when that right is vested by virtue of and under a contract of the parties. A creditor under an ordinary contract acquires no vested right in the property of his debtor; and it is within the power of a state to declare which of the claimants against an insolvent debtor-a stranger or his wife and family, who, by law, have a legal right to a support from him-shall have preference:" Id.

"The condition of this state in the formation and adoption of

the Constitution of 1868 was anomalous, and it was competent for the convention and the people, with the express consent of the United States, to adopt as a part of the Constitution the article therein providing for a homestead, or any other provision designed to adjust the evils and inequalities produced by the ravages of the war and the emancipation of the slaves: such provisions stand upon the footing of a compact between the state and the United States, at the close of the war, in adjustment of the inequalities produced between individuals by the settlement imposed upon the people by the United States:" Id.

Mortgages and Judgments.—“ A mortgage given by the debtor is not one of the exceptions provided by the Constitution to which the homestead for his family is liable:" Chambliss v. Phelps, 39 Ga. 386. "Where one Harrison had a judgment against Kelly, and was about to levy on and sell the land now in controversy, and Kelly applied to Thomas, who loaned him the money to relieve the land from sale, and took his note, secured by mortgage, the lien of which it is now sought to enforce by the sale of the land, and Kelly claims a homestead in the land as against the mortgage lien held, that Kelly is not entitled to claim a homestead in the land, because as to past contracts the plaintiff's mortgage created an encumbrance' upon the land which the defendant is bound to discharge before he is entitled to a homestead under that act. The term 'encumbrances,' as used in the Constitution of 1868, was there used in the legal sense of that word, and should receive its obvious legal interpretation by the courts in the construction thereof:" Kelly v. Stephens, 39 Ga. Rep. 466. "A homestead is not subject to the payment of a judgment obtained prior to the passage of the homestead law, which does not fall within one of the exceptions mentioned in the Act of 1868 :" Pulliam et al. v. Sewell et al., decided March 22d 1870; to appear in 40 Ga.

"An execution which was issued from a judgment to foreclose a mortgage before the adoption of the Constitution of 1868 cannot be enforced against the homestead. A homestead is subject to an execution founded upon a debt contracted for the purchasemoney, and the fact that the debt has been transferred to a third party does not change that liability; and it is subject to the payment of the purchase-money, whether contracted before or since the Constitution; and if the judgment for the purchase-money is dormant, but not barred by the Statute of Limitations, the home

stead is still bound for its satisfaction, if it is revived within the period allowed by the statute:" Chambliss v. Phelps, 39 Ga. 388, 390.

Exceptions.-The exceptions in the homestead provisions of the Constitution of 1868 apply as well to the personalty as to the realty set apart, provided the specific property is capable of identification: Phelps v. Porter, decided March 31st 1870; to appear in 40 Ga.

As to Purchasers with Notice." Where property is levied on to satisfy a fi. fa., and before the sale the defendant applies to the court, under the Act of 1868, for a homestead in the property levied on, the property is subject to the homestead, and if it is sold with notice of the application, the purchaser buys it with that encumbrance upon it:" Blivins v. Johnson, decided March 15th 1870; to appear in 40 Ga.

"Where the head of a family applies to the court to have a homestead set apart under section 2013 of the Code, and the land was sold at sheriff's sale pending this application, the purchaser at such sale with notice that such application was pending took the property, under the Code, subject to the encumbrance of the homestead when properly laid off;" Kilgore v. Beck et al., decided March 15th 1870; to appear in 40 Ga.

As to pre-existing Creditors." The wife of the defendant in fi. fa. is entitled, under section 2013 of the Code, to have $500 of the proceeds of the sale of a town lot set apart and invested in a house for herself and family, against a pre-existing creditor :” Maxay, Jordan & Co. v. Loyal, 38 Ga. 531.

What is meant by "the Head of a Family."-" An unmarried man, whose indigent mother and sisters live with him, and are supported by him, is the head of a family:" Marsh et al. v. Lazenby, decided July 5th 1870.

Rights of Widows and Minors as to Homestead." The widow and minor children of a deceased person are entitled to a homestead, to be laid off just as it would have been upon the application of the husband and father prior to his death:" Hodo v. Johnson & Heath, decided March 22d 1870; to appear in 40 Ga.

Rights of a Bankrupt under Homestead Acts." The homestead and exemption provision of the Code, § 2013, is the Exemption. Law of this state, referred to in the Bankrupt Act of the United States, and as by the Code, said homestead is not subject to levy

and sale, even for the purchase-money, a judgment against a discharged bankrupt, though obtained before his discharge, cannot levy upon and sell a homestead for the bankrupt, set apart by the bankrupt officials, even though said judgment be for the purchasemoney of the same:" Ruskin v. Gause, decided July, 1870.

"A bankrupt is not entitled to the exemption of a homestead out of land mortgaged by him at the time of its purchase, to secure the payment of the purchase-money until the said mortgage is satisfied:" In re John B. Whitehead, bankrupt, Southern Dist. of Ga., ERSKINE, J., April, 1869. "The homestead of a bankrupt cannot be sold after he has filed his petition in bankruptcy, although it may then be levied upon by the United States Marshal:" In re Jesse H. Griffin, ERSKINE, J., Southern Dist., Ga., 2 Bank. Reg. 85.

As to Taxes." The state is bound by the Acts of the Legisla ture, exempting certain articles of property from levy and sale for debts, for the benefit of the wife and children of the debtor; and such property, exempted under § 2013 Code, cannot be seized and sold under execution to pay the taxes due by him:" Doe ex dem. Gledney v. Deavors, 11 Ga. 79.

As to Judgments founded on Torts.—" The Homestead Exemption Acts, as contained in the Code, do not protect property from judgments founded on torts; they apply expressly and exclusively to judgments founded on contracts:" Davis v. Henson, 29 Ga.

345.

From the foregoing decisions it will be seen that the Supreme Court has so construed the Homestead and Exemption Laws as to almost entirely deprive a creditor from collecting his debts. From the foregoing decisions we deduce the following points, which are most important to creditors:

1. That the homestead provision of the Constitution of 1868 is retroactive, and applies to judgments, executions and decrees, founded on debts contracted before its adoption, even though reduced to judgment before that time, unless they fall within the exceptions provided for in the Constitution.

2. That if the mortgages, judgments, executions, and decrees are founded upon debts contracted for money borrowed and expended in the improvements of the homestead; or, for the purchase-money of the same; or, for labor done thereon; or, for materials furnished therefor; or, for removal of encumbrances;

or, for taxes, that then said mortgages, judgments, executions, and decrees can be enforced, and the homesteads and exemptions made subject to them.

3. That under the Homestead and Exemption laws of the Code, § 2013, no executions or liens whatsoever, whether contracted before or after the adoption of the Code, can be enforced.

4. All produce, rents or profits arising from homesteads shall be exempt from levy and sale, except as is provided for in the case of the homestead itself, with the following additional exceptions:For stock, provisions, and other articles used in making the crop; for necessaries for the family; for medical services for the family; and for tuition for education.

LOUISIANA.

Under the Code of Practice it is declared that the sheriff cannot seize; the linen and clothes belonging to the debtor or his wife; his bed, nor those of his family; his arms and military accoutrements; the tools and instruments necessary for the exercise of the trade or profession by which he gains a living; the right of personal servitude, of use and habitation, of usufruct to the estate of a minor child, or the income of dotal property; the agricultural implements and working cattle separately from the land to which they are attached; the corn, fodder, hay, provisions, and other supplies necessary for carrying on the plantation to which they are attached for the current year. Also 160 acres of ground, and the buildings and improvements thereon, occupied as a residence, and bona fide owned by the debtor, having a family, or mother, or father, or person or persons dependent on him for support; also, one workhorse, one wagon or cart, one yoke of oxen, two cows and calves, twenty-five head of hogs, or 1000 pounds of bacon or equivalent in pork; and in the case of a farmer the necessary quantity of corn and fodder for the current year: Provided, that the property herein declared to be exempt from seizure and sale does not exceed in value $2000.

No debtor is entitled to the exemption provided for in this section, whose wife shall own property worth more than $1000. (Whenever the widow or minor children of a deceased person shall be left in necessitous circumstances, and not possess in their own right property to the amount of $1000, the widow or the legal representatives of the children shall be entitled to demand and receive from the succession of their deceased father or