Stanley v. Greenwood

That a law office, used only as such, by a single man, is not, within the meaning of the law, exempting the homestead from forced sale, or in any just sense of the term, a homestead, is too plain for argument.

Error from Gaudalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell. This was an injunction suit brought by E. J. Stanley, to enjoin the sale of a certain house and lot, by virtue of an execution levied upon it, to satisfy a judgment against him, in favor of T. C. Greenwood, for $1000. The plaintiff proved, in substance, the grounds alleged by him in his petition, namely, that he was a practising attorney at law, in the town of Seguin, wherein the house and lot levied on was situated ; it was his law office, and was built by him for that purpose, and had been occupied by him ever since, as such. He owned no other real property, and was a single man, without family. He neither slept in the office, nor otherwise occupied it, than as a law office; and acquired the house and lot since the adoption of the State Constitution. A jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court; and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, dissolving the injunction ; and for costs of suit.