
    E. J. Stanley v. T. C. Greenwood.
    That a law office, used only as such, by a single man, is not, within the meaning of the law, exempting the homestead from forced sale, or in any just sense of the term, a homestead, is too plain for argument.
    Error from Gaudalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell.
    This was an injunction suit brought by E. J. Stanley, to enjoin the sale of a certain house and lot, by virtue of an execution levied upon it, to satisfy a judgment against him, in favor of T. C. Greenwood, for $1000.
    The plaintiff proved, in substance, the grounds alleged by him in his petition, namely, that he was a practising attorney at law, in the town of Seguin, wherein the house and lot levied on was situated ; it was his law office, and was built by him for that purpose, and had been occupied by him ever since, as such. He owned no other real property, and was a single man, without family. He neither slept in the office, nor otherwise occupied it, than as a law office; and acquired the house and lot since the adoption of the State Constitution.
    A jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court; and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, dissolving the injunction ; and for costs of suit.
    
      Wilcox 8? Leigh, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited O. & W. Dig., Art. 874; Cobbs v. Coleman, 14 Texas Rep. 594; Pryor v. Stone, 19 Id. 371.
    
      John Ireland, for the defendant in error.
   Wheeler, C. J.

A homestead necessarily includes the idea of residence. But it will not be said that the plaintiff had his residence in his law office, or that the office in question was his residence. A law office may be connected with, and used as a part of a dwelling-house, and thus, by its use, be brought within the homestead exemption. (Pryor v. Stone, 19 Texas Rep. 371.) But that an office, used only as a law office, by a single man, is not within the meaning of the law, or in any just sense of the term, a homestead, is too plain for argument. The case of Philleo v. Smalley, (23 Texas Rep. 498,) is decisive of the present-. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  