
    Coolidge vs. Wells.
    Neither the constitution nor the statute has undertaken to'exempt a merely contemplated future homestead; it must be a homestead in fhct, in order to be exempt.
    Appeal from Berrien.Circuit, in Chancery.
   Opinion by

Christiancy J.

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The defense of homestead was set up, the mortgage not being executed by the wife.

There was no dwelling house on the premises, and never had been, nor had the defendant,- or any of his family, ever resided thereon. The defendant, however, had intended at some future time to build a dwelling house upon the land, and to go and reside.there, though no house had yet been commenced.

Held, That neither the Constitution nor the statutehasundertaken to exempt a merely contemplated future homestead. Both leave the parties first' to make or obtain a homestead in fact, and then apply the exemption to the homestead- thus already acquired. Neither has tindertaken to furnish homesteads, or the means of obtaining them, to those who have none.

Decree below, dismissing the bill, reversed with costs, and an interlocutory decree of foreclosure entered in this Court, and the case remitted to the Circuit for such other proceedings as may be necessary for stating an account between the parties, and, ascertaining the amount to be allowed to the defendant in reduction of the mortgage debt, and for making the decree final and carrying it into effect.  