There are a long list of Oklahoma authorities passing directly on this point construing the late statute and consistently followed up to the present time. The case of Hawkins et al. v. Corbitt et al., 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 649, wherein the court said, in quoting sec. 2, art. 12, of the Constitution and referring to sec. 1143, Rev. Laws 1910: "Under the above provisions of the Constitution and laws of Oklahoma homestead exempt by law cannot be alienated except by written instrument joined in and subscribed by both husband and wife, where that relation exists.

Fetterman v. Franklin, 88 Okla. 1, 211 P. 403; Baker v. Grayson, 86 Okla. 159, 207 P. 301; Barnett v. Sanders, 121 Okla. 14, 247 P. 55; Bishoff v. Myers, 101 Okla. 36, 223 P. 165; Standard Savings Loan Ass'n v. Acton, 178 Okla. 400, 63 P.2d 15; Montgomery v. Wise, 179 Okla. 247, 62 P.2d 647. In Wilson v. Clark, 97 Okla. 299, 223 P. 668; Thomas v. James, 84 Okla. 91, 202 P. 499, and Hawkins v. Corbit, 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 649, we held that both husband and wife must join in the same instrument, and that an attempted conveyance by separate and distinct deeds, one executed by the husband and the other by the wife, was insufficient to convey any right in the homestead. The above cases and numerous others indicate that this court has at all times been zealous to enforce the constitutional provisions and the statutes in order to safeguard the family in its occupancy of the homestead.

In this jurisdiction the homestead estate, regardless of whether the same be legal or equitable, cannot be alienated by the owner, if married, unless his or her spouse join in the instrument of conveyance or assignment. Article 12, sec. 2, Okla. State Const.; sec. 9661, O. S. 1931; Thomas v. James et al., 84 Okla. 9l, 202 P. 499; Hawkins et al. v. Corbit el al., 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 649. An attempted conveyance without such joinder is absolutely void. Fetterman v. Franklin et al., 88 Okla. 1, 211 P. 403.

To hold otherwise would, in our judgment, let down the bars to untold abuse and to practically nullify the letter as well as the spirit and intent of the constitutional inhibition. It would create a dangerous precedent applicable to all homestead conveyances, wholly unwarranted under section 2, art. 12 of the Constitution. If, as this court has held on numerous occasions, a separate conveyance by husband and wife does not meet the requirements of the Constitution (Thomas v. James, 84 Okla. 91, 202 P. 499; Hawkins v. Corbit, 83 Okla, 275, 201 P. 649), we cannot believe that the mere acceptance of benefits under the circumstances appearing in this case will dispense with the necessity of joint signature. Defendant had both actual and constructive knowledge of the homestead character of this property.

A judgment in equity in a suit for an accounting is an obligation in contract and not in tort, and is subject to a claim of homestead exemption. Hawkins v. Corbit, 83 Okl. 275, 201 P. 649; Allsopp v. Joshua Hendy Mach. Works, 5 Cal.App. 228, 90 P. 39; Johnson v. Griffin Banking Trust Co., 55 Ga. 691; Garcelon v. Commercial Traveler's Ass'n, 184 Mass. 8, 67 N.E. 868, 100 Am.St.Rep. 540; Jewett v. Ware, 107 Va. 802, 60 S.E. 131. A judgment rendered in an action founded on a contract is one for a debt within the meaning of Code, § 7882, and is subject to a claim of homestead exemption.

the benefit of themselves and family, without regard to which spouse has title to the property (McMullen v. Carlis, 133 Okla. 204, 271 P. 665); that two sisters living together, if the other essentials are present, will constitute a family (Union Tr. Co. v. Cox, 55 Okla. 68, 155 P. 206); that tenant in common is entitled to have a homestead exemption in lands held in common (Atlas Sup. Co. v. Blake, 51 Okla. 778, 152 P. 601); that the wife, the owner of the homestead in fee, may assail the validity of a foreclosure judgment upon the ground that the husband was not a party to the action (Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681); that a mortgage void from its inception for a lack of joinder of the nonowning spouse is not validated by the later abandonment of the property as a homestead (Hall v. Powell, 8 Okla. 276, 57 P. 168); and that the husband and wife may not alienate the homestead by executing separate deeds (Thomas v. James, 84 Okla. 91, 202 P. 499), or by separate writings (Hawkins v. Corbitt, 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 649). In discussing what is a homestead interest we said in the case of Pettis v. Johnston, supra:

The pleadings in this case, both the petition of plaintiff and the petition to vacate, show upon their face that the mortgage foreclosed covered the homestead of the appellant. Aquilla G. Grubb, and his wife, Bertie Grubb; that Bertie Grubb is and was insane at the time of the institution of this suit, and confined in the state asylum; that she was not made a party to this suit; that no summons or notice of any kind was ever given her, and no one appeared in court to represent her interests; and under section 2, art. 12 of the Constitution, and section 5240, C. S. 1921, and the construction placed thereon by this court in the case of Hawkins et al. v. Corbit et al., 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 659, wherein it is held that the homestead cannot be alienated except by written instrument joined in by both husband and wife, and that the homestead laws must be strictly followed, and in the case of Pettis v Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681, the same rule is followed, and a judgment is declared to be void where upon an inspection of the judgment roll it is disclosed that either spouse is not made a party to such foreclosure proceedings, and that such judgment of foreclosure is absolutely void and divests neither the wife nor the husband of any interest or title in said homestead. Numerous authorities are cited in support of this rule, but we deem it unnecessary to incumber the record with a long list of authorities in support of a rule that is so well established in this jurisdiction.

We are therefore of opinion that the evidence so far considered reasonably sustains the judgment of the trial court. Plaintiffs contend that the deed from Francis M. Nickel to Pottenger was void, because the lands were impressed with a homestead, and the burden was upon the defendants to prove the homestead was abandoned and no other homestead acquired by Nickel and his family, citing Long v. Talley, 84 Okla. 38, 201 P. 990; Fletcher v. Popejoy, 87 Okla. 185, 209 P. 746; Hawkins v. Corbit, 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 649; Fetterman v. Franklin, 88 Okla. 1, 211 P. 403; American State Bank of Covington v. Laforce et ux., 95 Okla. 88, 218 P. 1075. An examination of the cases cited shows they are clearly not in point, and it is unnecessary to set out the facts therein.

" In Hawkins v. Corbit, 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 649, the court approved the following from Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681: "The homestead interest is jointly vested in the husband and wife for the benefit of themselves and family, without regard to which spouse owns the title to the land; the homestead interest is a creature of the Constitution and statutes; nothing like it being known at common law; it is a special and peculiar interest in real estate; it is not a mere inchoate interest in either spouse to become vested upon the death of the other; this joint right is paramount to the individual rights of either, and being incapable of division and partition between husband and wife it cleaves and adheres so closely to the title of the land itself that it cannot be disassociated therefrom by a mortgage foreclosure sale under a court decree to which either husband or wife is not a party."

The rule announced in the case of Maloy v. Cameron Co., 29 Okla. 763, 119 P. 587, that the separate conveyance by the husband of the homestead, title being in the husband, was only voidable as to the wife not joining in such conveyance, and that the husband executing such a conveyance was concluded thereby, was a case controlled by sections 880, 882, and 883 of Wilson's Revised Annotated Statutes 1903, and arising prior to the adoption of our state Constitution. The rule therein announced has not been followed by this court in cases arising since the adoption of section 2, art. 12, of the Constitution, which provides that the homestead of the family should not be sold by the owner, if married, without the consent of his or her spouse, given in such manner as may be prescribed by law. Whelan v. Adams et al., supra; Davis v. McGilbray et ux., 81 Okla. 42, 196 P. 339; Shannon et ux. v. Potter et al., 83 Okla. 66, 200 P. 860 ; Hawkins et al. v. Corbit et al., 83 Okla. 275, 201 P. 649. See Hannah Hill v. First Nat'l Bank of Marianna et al., 79 Fla. 391, 84 South, 190, 20 A. L. R. 270.