Babcock

Argued that the lot was not a homestead, and that the declaration was void, because the parties were not residing on the premises when it was filed, and cited Gregg v. Bostwick, 33 Cal. 227, 228 , cited and approved in Mann v. Rogers, 35 Cal. 316 ; Prescott v. Prescott, 45 Cal. 58 ; Gambetta v. Brock, 41 Cal. 83 .

J. F. Havens, for Eespondents.

The defendants having made, filed, and had recorded their declaration of homestead in due form, and perfected their home *630 stead claim by actual possession and residence with their family on the premises before the plaintiffs served their attachment, the property was exempt from forced sale, and plaintiffs could get nothing by their attachment and sale of the premises. The record of the declaration of homestead and the residence of the family were notice to plaintiffs and all the world of their homestead claim. ( 4 Cal. 268 ; 6 Cal. 234 ; 10 Cal. 296 ; 7 Cal. 245 .)

At the oral argument the judgment and order in this case were reversed from the bench, and the cause was remanded for a new trial. For the guidance of the Court below on another trial, we deem it proper to state the grounds on which we proceeded in reversing the judgment…