Morton v. . Barber

Ashe, J. The only exception taken below to the ruling of T-Tis Honor was, “ that the statute of limitations did not run in favor of Joseph Barber after the allotment of his homestead and personal property exemption by the sheriff in 1869, under execution issued upon this judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.” The decision in McDonald v. Dickson, 85 N. C., 248, is decisive of this case. There, as here, the plaintiffs contended that the case was saved from the bar of the statute by virtue of the act of 1869-70 (Bat. Rev., ch. 55, §26), which declares it to *401 be unlawful to levy and sell under execution the reversionary interest in lands included in a homestead, until after the expiration of the homestead interest therein, and provides “ that the statute of limitations shall not run against any debt owing by the holder of the homestead affected by this section, during the existence of his interest therein.” This court held that the provisions of that act were only intended to apply where the homestead had been actually allotted, and only as to the debts affected by such allotments, i. <?., to judgments docketed in the county where the homestead land is situated and solely with reference to their liens upon the rever-sionary interest in such lands., For any other purpose than that of allowing a judgment-creditor to issue his execution and sell the land allotted for. a homestead after the termination of the homestead, the statute is still a bar. Section 26 of chapter 55 of Battle’s Revisal is not brought forward in The - Code, but this proceeding was commenced before- The Code went into operation, and is therefore -not affected by it (§3868). There is no error. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed. No error. Affirmed.