Taylor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Cook v. McChristian (ante p. 23), we decided that the Homestead Law required no specific act to indicate thé selection of a homestead, and that the occupancy of .the family was presumptive evidence of the appropriation of the place as a homestead, and was consequently notice to all the world.

The main difference between this case and that of Cook v. McChristian consists in the fact, that here the husband and * wife remove from the premises, after .a [273] sale by the husband in which the wife did not join, and it is argued by the appellant that this was evidence of an abandonment of the homestead, and the acquisition of a new one.

It seems to me, on the contrary, to be the very case against which the statute intends to provide. If the husband can sell at pleasure, and remove to another place, without the consent or approbation of the wife, then the design of the statute to protect her against the improvidence, misfortunes or misconduct of the husband, would be totally nugatory.

As soon as a place, by the occupancy in good faith, of *274 the family, acquires the nature of a homestead, the nature of the estate becomes changed, without…