Houghton v. Lee
Houghton v. Lee, 50 Cal. 101 (1875)
Syllabus
Garnishment of Sum Due fob Homestead.—If the •wife declares a homestead on common property, and the husband procures a policy of insurance on the house thereon, and the house is destroyed by fire, the sum due from the insurance company is not subject to garnishment by a judgment creditor of the husband.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, County of Solano.
On the 31st day of March, 1871, George W. Lee, and his wife Delia, were residing with their minor children on a lot in Vallejo, and Mrs. Lee filed a declaration of homestead thereon. The house and lot were community property. On the 17th of September, 1872, J. F. Houghton recovered a judgment against the husband for over nine thousand dollars. On the 11th day of March, 1873, the husband effected an insurance on the house and household furniture, in the Hartford Insurance Company, for §1400. On the 5th day of June thereafter, the house and furniture were destroyed by fire. The company were willing to pay the insurance, but on the 7th day of June, 1873, Houghton placed an execution issued on his judgment in the hands of the sheriff, who levied upon the money in the hands of the company. The wife moved the court to set aside the levy, and the motion was granted. Houghton appealed from the order.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
The court below properly held that the sum due from the insurance company was not subject to garnishment by a creditor of the husband.
Order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 19 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.