Watson v. Manning

17 Citing cases

  1. Beisell v. Wood

    182 Or. 66 (Or. 1947)   Cited 8 times

    The water of the spring, being a part of the land upon which it arises, may be severed therefrom and the right to use the same conveyed away by deed. Messingerv. Woodcock, 159 Or. 435, 444, 80 P.2d 895; Talbot v. Joseph, 79 Or. 308, 311, 155 P. 184. The right granted by Stahlman to the Bewleys included the use, upon the property conveyed, of water from Stahlman's spring for domestic and irrigation purposes.

  2. In re Booth

    18 F. Supp. 79 (N.D. Okla. 1937)   Cited 4 times

    In the case at bar it does not appear that any land was leased or rented nor that any particular part of the tract was set aside for the use of the occupants of the duplex, and I therefore hold that the referee's decision was right and it is affirmed. In this decision I have not overlooked the cases of Ashton v. Ingle, 20 Kan. 670, 27 Am.Rep. 197, Watson v. Manning, 56 Okla. 295, 156 P. 184, and Bouse v. Stone, 65 Okla. 5, 162 P. 479. The Ashton Case is sufficiently disposed of by the remarks of the Kansas Supreme Court in Layson v. Grange, supra.

  3. Hickok v. Kennedy

    177 Okla. 334 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 3 times
    In Hickok v. Kennedy, 177 Okla. 334, 58 P.2d 1236 (Okla. 1936), the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's refusal to impress a probate homestead on land whose urban or rural character was in dispute.

    It is unnecessary to quote from the case: it is sufficient to observe that it illustrates the necessity of homestead use to homestead identity. See, also, Johnson v. Johnson, 82 Okla. 259, 200 P. 204; Watson v. Manning, 56 Okla. 295, 156 P. 184; Bouse et al. v. Stone et al., 65 Okla. 5, 162 P. 479; McCray v. Miller et al., 78 Okla. 16, 184 P. 781; Greenwood v. Wilkinson, 124 Okla. 300, 256 P. 46. It being manifest that the acts and conduct of both Hickok and his wife, the plaintiff, multiplied over a period of five years, evidence more strongly the absence of homestead use and characteristics than the presence thereof, the judgment of the trial court in this respect was fully warranted, and is not against the clear weight of the evidence.

  4. Smith v. Kay

    153 Or. 80 (Or. 1936)   Cited 5 times

    This does not mean, however, that the homestead claimant may assert a right to have an entire block exempt, if the value thereof does not exceed $3,000, regardless of the use to which the property is put. See, in this connection: Wapples on Homestead and Exemption, pp. 182-184 and 232-238; Maloney v. Hefer, 75 Cal. 422 ( 17 P. 539, 7 Am.St.Rep. 180); Hoitt v. Webb, 36 N.H. 158; Casselman v. Packard, 16 Wis. 114 (82 Am.Dec. 710); Watson v. Manning, 56 Okla. 295 ( 156 P. 184); In re Ligget, 117 Cal. 352 ( 49 P. 211). Section 3-201, supra, provides that the "homestead must be the actual abode of and occupied by the owner, his or her spouse, parent or child".

  5. Cade v. Graffo

    227 Ala. 11 (Ala. 1933)   Cited 16 times

    Lester v. Stroud, 212 Ala. 635, 103 So. 692. Where a lot in a city is occupied by the owner as a residence, adjacent lot or lots rented to tenants cannot be claimed as exempt by the owner. Moseley v. Neville, 221 Ala. 429, 129 So. 12; Turner v. Turner, 107 Ala. 465, 18 So. 210, 54 Am. St. Rep. 110; Fuller v. Amer. Supp. Co., 185 Ala. 512, 64 So. 549; Mullins v. Baker, 193 Ala. 596, 69 So. 516; Beard v. Johnson, 87 Ala. 729, 6 So. 383; In re Allen, 78 Cal. 293, 20 P. 679; Lemerise v. Robinson, 241 Mich. 528, 217 N.W. 911; Watson v. Manning, 56 Okl. 295, 156 P. 184; Pennington v. Bigbie, 127 Okl. 203, 260 P. 481; Andrews v. Hagadon, 54 Tex. 571; Stringer v. Swenson, 63 Tex. 7; Jones v. Lee (Tex.Civ.App.) 41 S.W. 195; In re Ligget, 117 Cal. 352, 49 P. 211, 59 Am. St. Rep. 190; Hoitt v. Webb, 36 N.H. 158; Sever v. Lyons, 170 Ill. 395, 48 N.E. 926; Blum v. Rogers, 78 Tex. 530, 15 S.W. 115; Hendrick v. Hendrick, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 49, 34 S.W. 804; Ashton v. Ingle, 20 Kan. 670, 27 Am.Rep. 197; Oppenheimer v. Fritter, 79 Tex. 99, 14 S.W. 1051; Poncelor v. Campbell, 10 Kan. App. 581, 63 P. 606; Clausen v. Sanders, 109 La. 996, 34 So. 53; Rhyne v. Guevara, 67 Miss. 139, 6 So. 736, 737; 29 C. J. 808, 829; Garland v. Bostick, 118 Ala. 209, 23 So. 698; DeGraffenried v. Clark, 75 Ala. 425; Bell v. Anniston Hdw. Co., 114 Ala. 341, 21 So. 414; Garrett v. Jones, 95 Ala. 96, 10 So. 702; Tyler v. Jewett, 82 Ala. 93, 2 So. 905; McKay v. Gesford, 163 Cal. 243, 124 P. 1016, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 303, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1253. ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

  6. Preson v. Ottawa County Nat. Bank

    280 P. 581 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 8 times

    This field of law has been thoroughly developed. The questions presented in this case were definitely settled by this court in the cases of Johnson v. Johnston, 82 Okla. 259, 200 P. 204; Watson v. Manning, 56 Okla. 295, 156 P. 184; Bouse v. Stone, 65 Okla. 5, 162 P. 479; McCray v. Miller, 78 Okla. 16, 184 P. 781, 186 P. 1089; and Greenwood v. Wilkinson, 124 Okla. 300, 256 P. 46. A casual glance at these cases will convince the reader that a person cannot claim two homesteads at the same time.

  7. Pennington v. Bigbie

    127 Okla. 203 (Okla. 1927)   Cited 2 times

    Under the circumstances in this case we are inclined to believe that, even though the two tracts of land may have been located within the town of Lone Grove and had not exceeded the constitutional limit of a homestead, Baber could not have claimed both. In the case of Watson v. Manning, 56 Okla. 295, 156 P. 184, it is held that one who owns three adjoining lots, upon one of which is a building formerly occupied and used by him as a residence and store, and who built and occupied a residence on another of said lots and for several years rented out the first building occupied by him as a home, cannot claim the first building as a homestead. In the case at bar, Baber testified that a dwelling house was located on both tracts of land; that the 20 acres covered by the mortgage had been rented by him at all times since he purchased it, only when he was unable to secure a renter, and that the lots on which he lived inside the town of Lone Grove were six in number, and covered an area of 140 feet by 140 feet, where he had always maintained his home.

  8. Greenwood v. Wilkinson

    124 Okla. 300 (Okla. 1927)   Cited 9 times

    " In the case of Watson v. Manning, 56 Okla. 295, 156 P. 184, cited with approval in the case of Bouse v. Stone, above referred to, the first paragraph of the syllabus is as follows: "To entitle one to claim a homestead in a town as exempt from levy and sale under execution, the property so claimed must be owned and occupied as a homestead, or have been impressed with the homestead character and no other homestead acquired."

  9. Trower v. Wetmore

    123 Okla. 81 (Okla. 1926)   Cited 4 times

    This being town property, actual occupancy is necessary to impress upon it the homestead character (Const., art. 12, see. 1; Comp. Stat. 1921, section 6597), or there must exist an intention to make it a home for the family evidenced by overt acts of preparation for a reasonably delayed occupancy. Kelly v. Mosby, 34 Okla. 218, 124 P. 984; Laurie v. Crouch, 41 Okla. 589, 139 P. 304; Watson v. Manning, 56 Okla. 295, 155 P. 184; Illinois Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 61 Okla. 43, 160 P. 56. Bouse et al. v. Stone et al., 65 Okla. 5, 162 P. 479; Foster et al. v. Vickery et al., 111 Okla. 231, 239 P. 141. During the five or six years intervening between the remarriage of these people and the death of Gottman, they never occupied these premises as a home, nor was any overt act performed evidencing an intention on the part of William Gottman to make of it such a home.

  10. Bloech v. Hyland Homes Co.

    247 P. 761 (Or. 1926)   Cited 9 times

    Undoubtedly, a surveyor, or any business man well acquainted in Astoria, could locate "Taylors Astoria." When this is done, in the instant case, we have the numbers of the lot and block, which any surveyor could easily locate and describe the boundaries: House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89, 97 ( 32 P. 1027); McMaster v. Ruby, 80 Or. 476, 485 ( 157 P. 782); Hoffman v. Dorris, 83 Or. 625 ( 163 P. 972); Hardy v. California Trojan Co., 109 Or. 76, 81 ( 219 P. 197); Talbot v. Joseph, 79 Or. 308, 313 ( 155 P. 184). In Bogard v. Barhan, 52 Or. 121 ( 96 P. 673, 132 Am.St.Rep. 676), it was held sufficient in a deed, or other instrument affecting real property, when the descriptions were "my 15-acre farm located one mile north of Woodburn, Marion County, Oregon" and "his five-acre residence property lying west of the Catholic Church."