
    (69 South. 852)
    No. 21251.
    PERCY v. EWING (PEOPLE’S BANK, Warrantor).
    (Oct. 18, 1915.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    Homestead <S^21, 115 — “Head oe Family”— Paraphernal Property — Mortgages.
    A married woman, whose husband supports her and who has no one dependent on her, is not the head of a family, and has no homestead right in her paraphernal property; nor, when she borrows money, for her separate use, upon a mortgage of such property, can she afterwards, and upon the death of her husband, acquire such right, to the prejudice of the mortgage.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homestead, Cent. Dig. §§ 29, 30, 183, 184, 186-190; Dec. Dig. <@=^21, 115.
    For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Head of Family.]
    Appeal from Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches; W. T. Cunningham, Judge.
    Action by Mrs. Maude Percy against A. E. Ewing, with the People’s Bank as warrantor. From the judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Henry & Gunter, of Natchitoches, for appellant. Scarborough & Carver, of Natchitoches, for appellee Ewing. Breazeale & Breazeale, of Natchitoches, for appellee People’s Bank.
   MONROE, C. J.

On October 15, 1913, plaintiff presented a sworn petition to the judge of the district court, alleging that her husband was temporarily absent, and that she desired to borrow $600 upon a mortgage of certain paraphernal property, in order to pay an existing mortgage debt of $400, contracted for her separate benefit, make needed repairs, requiring $100, and pay taxes; and, the authority having been granted, she executed her note for $600, secured by mortgage, with a waiver of homestead, which were delivered to defendant by the People’s Bank, to whom, by plaintiff’s authority, he paid the $600. On January 30th, following, plaintiff’s husband, who is said to have been a traveling salesman, by private act, ratified what his wife had done. At a later date — after-maturity and nonpayment of the note— defendant caused executory process to issue thereon, and was met by an injunction, obtained by plaintiff, on a sworn petition in which she alleges that the $600 were borrowed to pay debts of her husband, that her husband died in August preceding the seizure, that the mortgaged property is her homestead, and that since his death she has not waived her homestead rights. It was shown on the trial that, of the $600 realized from the mortgage, $443.62 were expended in paying claims which would have primed plaintiff’s homestead claim, if she had had one that was otherwise good. But, at the execution of the mortgage, she was not the head of the family and had no one dependent on her; hence she had no homestead right, and she could not thereafter acquire one to the prejudice of the mortgage. Her waiver of the homestead was surplusage. Const. art 244; Borron v. Sollibellos, 28 La. Ann. 355; Fuselier v. Buckner, 28 La. Ann. 594; Taylor v. McElvin, 31 La. Ann. 283; Brannin v. Womble, 32 La. Ann. 805; Gilmer v. O’Neal, 32 La. Ann. 979; Tilton v. Vignes, 33 La. Ann. 242; Succession of Furniss, 34 La. Ann. 1013; Taylor v. Saloy, 38 La. Ann. 62; Coleman v. Wax, 120 La. 878, 45 South. 926; Ellis v. Freyhan, 124 La. 54, 49 South. 975; Coltharp v. West, 127 La. 430, 53 South. 675; Caire & Graugnard v. Hickox, 136 La. 803, 67 South. 887.

Plaintiff testifies that she told defendant that she intended to use some of the money that she was borrowing to pay grocery and drug bills, which were debts of the community. Defendant testifies that she gave him no such information.

Plaintiff’s sworn petition, upon which she obtained the authorization of the judge, and the act of mortgage executed by her, corroborate the testimony of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.  