
    Creath, Appellant, v. Dale et al.
    
    1. Homesteads : exchange of : statute. Under Revised Statutes, section 2696, the owner of a homestead, acquired by successive exchanges from a former one, is entitled to the same homestead rights in the one so acquired that he had in the original one.
    2. -: The fact that the owner of a farm sells a part of it, does not affect his homestead rights in the remainder, wffere the dwelling house occupied by himself and family are on the latter
    
      Appeal from Iron Circuit Court. — Host. John L. Ti-iomas, Judge.
    Aeeirmed.
    
      C. D. Yancey for appellant.
    (1) Purchase money entered into the note sued on. The Creath farm was not acquired by the defendant as the £ £ direct proceeds ’ ’ of his Piedmont homestead, if any such he ever had; but it was acquired by means of the value of that property being mingled with fifteen hundred dollars worth of another man’s credit. (2) Defendant’s deed for his alleged homestead was filed for record nearly four months after the date of the execution and delivery of the note on which judgment was recovered. R. S. of 1879, secs. 2695, 2696 ; Farra v. Quigley, 57 Mo. 284; Shindler- v. Givens, 63 Mo. 394; Lincoln v. Rowe, 64 Mo. 138; Oreath v. Rale, 69 Mo. 41; West River Bank v. Gale, 42 Yermont 27.
    
      J. W. Emerson-for respondents.
    (1) Dale had a homestead on and prior to the 17th day of June, 1874, in his Piedmont home estate. (2) Purchase money did not enter into the note sued on as to the homestead. (3) Oreath had no lien on any part of the land which he conveyed to Dale, and having none himself he could transfer none to anyone else. (4) A homestead interest in land can be waived or affected by deed only. Stafford v. Elliott, S. C. of Gra., March 20, 1878. (5) The statute authorizes one to sell or dispose of a homestead exempt from debts, and to acquire another with the proceeds of the former, which shall also be exempt from-such debts. The provision of the statute fixing the date of filing the deed for the homestead for record, as the test'by which it is exempt as to any given debt, refers only to the inception of the first homestead right. Farra v. Quigley, 57 Mo. 284; Stanley v. Baker, 75 Mo. 62; Beckman v. Meyer, 75 Mo. 336 ; Thompson on Homesteads, 392, 398:
   Sherwood, J.

Section 2696 of the Revised Statutes provides that when another homestead is acquired by one who was possessed of a former homestead, such prior homestead shall thereupon be liable for his debts, but that the subsequently acquired homestead shall not be liable for causes of action against him to which such prior homestead would not have been liable; “ provided that such other homestead shall have been acquired with the consideration derived from the sale or other disposition of such prior homestead.” It is clear from the record iu this cause that Dale owned a homestead in Piedmont in 1872, valued at $2,500. In June, 1874, he exchanged this homestead with Creath for a farm worth $4,000, and to make up the difference he executed his three promissory notes for five hundred dollars each, and thereupon warranty deeds were exchanged, and Dale filed his deed for record the next day and thereupon moved on to the farm so acquired, where he and his family remained, occupying it as a homestead until October, 1874, when he exchanged this farm with S. A. Harris, for another one of four hundred and four acres, making an even trade. Warranty deeds were exchanged at the time and Dale’s deed from Harris filed for record, and Dale and family thereupon moved to the farm thus acquired, upon which they have since resided as their homestead.

No doubt is entertained from these facts, that under the statute, whatever original homestead rights Dale possessed in the Piedmont property, were transferred by the successive exchanges to the farm last acquired by Dale. The fact that he sold off a portion of that farm does not •affect his right of homestead in the remainder, the dwelling house in which he and family resided being situate thereon.

The circuit court, therefore, ruled correctly in refusing to quash that portion of the sheriff’s return which set off to Dale a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres in the remaining land, and its judgment is affirmed.

All concur.  