Ware v. Hall

Grant, J. {after stating the facts). Where one buys a piece of land with the intention of soon thereafter erecting a building thereon for the sole purpose of a homestead, there is reason in holding that such land comes within the protection of the Constitution as a homestead, and that he will have a reasonable time in which to erect the building. That is not this case. For three years and a half complainant had owned this lot. It could not exist indefinitely as a homestead in her intention alone. Something must be done within a reasonable time towards making it such a homestead. There was no such occupancy as, under any of the decisions cited, has been held to constitute a homestead. From her own testimony there was no imme [72] diate or remote prospect that she could erect a house. She testified that her son, who was a carpenter, said that some time when he got able he would erect a house on the lot and give it to her. That was the only prospect she had. The facts are entirely different in the cases relied upon. Reske v. Reske, 51 Mich. 541; Deville v. Widoe, 64 Mich. 593; Mills v. Hobbs, 76 Mich. 126; Corey v. Waldo, 126 Mich. 706. Corey v. Waldo comes nearest to sustaining the plaintiff’s contention. But in that case the defendant and his wife were “proceeding as rapidly as circumstances would permit” to convert a homestead, which had been condemned by the city of Detroit for the purpose of opening a street, into another homestead composed of the lot which had been levied upon. Mr. Waldo was able to erect buildings thereon as a homestead, and we held that the reasonable time for him to carry that intention into effect by the occupancy which the Constitution and law require had not expired. Here the naked question is, Can one utterly insolvent, without any ability to earn money sufficient even to support herself, without any prospect of getting money to erect a building thereon, hold land indefinitely as a homestead ? To so hold would be in direct opposition to the language of the Constitution and the law, which require ownership and occupancy combined. In all the cases cited, except possibly Corey v. Waldo, there were some acts of occupancy. Intention without occupancy cannot create a homestead, for the Constitution requires occupancy as well as intention. There must be some acts which, coupled with the intention, constitute the necessary occupancy. Decree reversed, and bill dismissed. The other Justices concurred.