rights of the homestead privilege in Texas

1941These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of a husband to make arrangements in relation to these incum-brances, or to renounce lands thus bur-thened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving his wife of a homestead.” This rule has been followed by an unbroken line of authorit

1895In De Bruhl v. Maas, 54 Texas, 474 , it is said: “It was held in White v. Shepperd, 16 Texas, 172 , in regard to the restraint on the husband to dispose of the homestead without the wife’s consent, that ‘this restriction applies where the husband has acquired full property in the land, and not where it is charged with preceding equities and incumbrances. *141 These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of the husband to make arrangements in relation to these incumbrances, or to renounce lands thus burdened or subject to condition

1948These must be ■ discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of the husband to make arrangements in relation to these incumbrances, or to¡renounce lands, thus burdened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise, if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving the wife of a homestead.” In the case of Odom v. Empire Building and Loan Ass’n, T

1941In the recent case of Odom v. Empire Building & Loan Association, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 1053 , under a state of facts similar in all material respects to those in the instant case, it was held that the husband alone, without the wife’s joinder, had the right to renew, extend, and adjust all prior existing debts and liens, and, if necessary, to sell the homestead to satisfy such indebtedness.

1880These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of the husband to make arrangements in relation to these incumbrances, or to renounce lands thus burdened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving the wife of a homestead.” See, also, Meyer v. Claus, 15 Tex., 516 ; Farmer v. Simpson,

1879These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of the husband to make arrangements in relation to these incumbrances, or to renounce lands thus burdened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise, if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving the wife of a homestead.” In the case of Meyer v. Clans, 15 Tex., 516 , a sale by the

1941These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of a husband to make arrangements in relation to these incum-brances, or to renounce lands thus bur-thened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving his wife of a homestead.” This rule has been followed by an unbroken line of authorit

1941These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of a husband to make arrangements in relation to these incum-brances, or to renounce lands thus bur-thened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving his wife of a homestead.” This rule has been followed by an unbroken line of authorit

1941These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of a husband to make arrangements in relation to these incum-brances, or to renounce lands thus bur-thened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving his wife of a homestead.” This rule has been followed by an unbroken line of authorit

1941These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of a husband to make arrangements in relation to these incum-brances, or to renounce lands thus bur-thened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving his wife of a homestead.” This rule has been followed by an unbroken line of authorit

1941These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of a husband to make arrangements in relation to these incum-brances, or to renounce lands thus bur-thened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving his wife of a homestead.” This rule has been followed by an unbroken line of authorit

1902Mabry v. Harrison, 44 Texas, 294 ; Clements v. Lacy, 51 Texas, 160 ; De Bruhl v. Maas, 54 Texas, 474 ; Dillon v. Kauffman, 58 Texas, 707 ; Brooks v. Young, 60 Texas, 36 ; Wheatley v. Griffin, 60 Texas, 212 ; *509 Morris v. Geisecke, 60 Texas, 635 ; Hicks v. Morris, 57 Texas, 662; McDougal v. Bradford, 80 Texas, 566 .

1895Hicks v. Morris, 57 Texas, 658 ; Whatley v. Griffen, 60 Texas, 212 .

1880These must be discharged, and they have precedence over the rights of the homestead privilege; and the right of the husband to make arrangements in relation to these incumbrances, or to renounce lands thus burdened or subject to conditions and contingencies, could not be questioned by the wife, in virtue of her remote right which might arise if the incumbrances or conditions were ever discharged or removed, unless in cases where the husband is squandering the property, with the fraudulent design of depriving the wife of a homestead.” See, also, Meyer v. Claus, 15 Tex., 516 ; Farmer v. Simpson,