What is the test for affirmation of an order that would support the respondent's contention and require an affirmance of the order?

There is language in the cases cited which, if broadly construed, would support the respondent's contention and require an affirmance of the order herein. However, because of what we believe to be the intent and purpose of our homestead law, we apply the rule stated in Porter v. Bakersfield & Kern Electric Ry. Co., 1950, 36 Cal.2d 582, 590, 225 P.2d 223, 228, which holds: 'It is elementary that the language used in any opinion is to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court.' Thus limited, the cited cases are not authority for the order in this case.