of land on which he resided does not extinguish the rural homestead character of the property. The Fifth Circuit has stated the following with respect to this issue: "Neither the Texas Property Code, nor the Texas Constitution, bar a rural resident from operating a business, per se, on the property on which he resides. Because the 'business' or 'calling' of rural residents has traditionally been agricultural, the Texas Supreme Court has not yet been presented with the opportunity to pass upon a case that involves (a) a rural resident, who claims (b) rural property, that is (c) on the same tract as his residence and (d) is used for non-agricultural business purposes, as part of his homestead. But see, Hollifield v. Hilton, 515 S.W.2d 717; 717-721 (Tex.Civ.App.1974), writ ref'd, n.r.e. (<HOLDING>); In re Buie, 287 F. 896 (N.D.Tex.1923), aff'd,
holding that where appellants owned and resided upon contiguous 60acre rural farm and used 18 acres as a mobile home park 18acre tract was part of the rural homestead holding that an assembler of a mobile home is deemed to be a manufacturer of a finished product that is the mobile home for purposes of determining the applicability of the affirmative causalrelation defense under the aemld holding that despite moving mobile homes onto the property a mobile home park was not in operation since regulations required permits to operate such a park and the property owner had not applied for such permits holding that debtor could not claim homestead in rural property which he owned but did reside and to which he indicated no intent to return holding that landowners testimony based on lot method was properly excluded in condemnation case involving property  that owner proposed to develop as mobile home park where subdivision development was speculative