The only question presented by the record is, whether the defendant is entitled to his homestead in the land in controversy. Article ten, section two of the constitution provides that every homestead and the dwelling and buildings used therewith, not exceeding in value one thousand dollars, to be selected by the owner thereof, <fcc., shall be exempt from sale under execution, or other final process obtained on any debt. But no property shall be exempt from sale for taxes or for the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of said premises.
And this raises the inquiry, whether the note signed by the defendant upon which the judgment was rendered, under which the land was sold, was such an obligation — contracted for the purchase of the land in question — as is contemplated by the constitution.
In the case of Whitaker v. Elliott, 73 N. C., 186, this court said : “In the construction of a state constitution, words are not to be taken in a narrow and technical sense, but in a general and popular sense, so as to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it. The word ‘obligation/ as here used, therefore means a debt contracted to be paid or a duty to be performed by the purchaser, as the consideration of the purchase of the premises.”
The term “obligation” then, is not used in its technical sense, but embraces every contract to pay for the land, whether by specialty or parol; but the contract, we are of the opinion, must *237be made with the bargainor and the consideration must be the price of the land purchased.
In this case the defendant purchased the land from William Dorsett, and, as part of the consideration for the purchase, agreed to pay the amount of the note which said Dorsett owed to the plaintiff — the payment of which was to be credited on the amount which the defendant had contracted to pay Dorsett for the land. The obligation to pay the note was contracted with Dorsett, the bargainor, as the consideration in part of the purchase, as much so as if he had given his note to Dorsett for the price, and he had delivered it over to the'plaintiff in payment of his note. In that case, there can be no doubt the land for the purchase of which the note was given would be subject to its payment.
When the defendant, in consideration of the purchase of the land, promised Dorsett that he would pay the amount of the note which the plaintiff held on him, an action of assumpsit would have lain in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, the statute of frauds not being relied upon, as in this case; and although the defendant signed «the note and thereby became liable to the plaintiff, that did not absolve him from his original contract with Dorsett to pay the note.
Suppose when judgment was obtained upon the note against Dorsett, Fox and the defendant, the execution issuing thereon had been satisfied out of the property of Dorsett, can it be questioned that Dorsett would have had the right to recover the amount collected from him, from the defendant, for the breach of his promise originally made to pay the note? The contract between Dorsett and the defendant was, that the latter, in consideration of the purchase money, should pay the note which Dorsett owed the plaintifij not that he should sign the note. His doing that was a voluntary act, and his obligation to Dorsett continued until the note was paid. There is no error.
The judgment of the superior court of Chatham county is affirmed.
No error. Affirmed.