The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-01-14
Syn0Rsis OF Opinions Delivered by the
sapTeme Court, january ii, 1851.
prepared for the Herald by Edward j. Ham


sapEeme Court, january ii, 1851.
prepared for the Herald by Edward j. Hama
ner, OF CAlyestonl
Henry +. Clayton VS.. N. NJ. McKinnon ei
al. As this case WAS tried by the court
without jury, and MS we are Of opinion that
there was competent evidence sufficient to
authorize the judgment rendered, the erro-
neous admission of evidence would not re-
quire reversal of the judgment. Milton
vs. Cobb. q Tex, $50; Beatty vs.. WhittG.
ker, % Tex, 526; Smith vs.. Hughes, 29 Tex,
248.) The petition prayed for citation TO
John w. Clayton, of Liberty, Texas, as
guardians Of Ii. II. Clayton" The decree
ordering partition recited that "the minor,
Henry f. Clayton, appeared by his guar.
dian," and the decree confirming the petition
made by the commissioners directs that
"John W. Clayton, guardian of Henry II.
Clayton have and receive for tho
uae and benefit of said Henry f.. Clayton"
etc. Held, That the court making these
DEGREES must bepresumed to have had suf-
flcient evidence that John w, Clayton was
such guardian, and from the reeiials it must
further be presumed that the said guardian
appeared in person or by attorney. Henry
r. Clayton used means OF his son and ward,
Henry II. Clayton, to buy 422 acres of land.
Held, Ha and those holding under him, with
notice of that fact, held legal title to the land,
subject TO equitable title Of Henry f. Clay
ton TO so much ae was bought with his
means. Tho lRnd was sold by order Of court,
and Henry r. Clayton's share paid TO his
said guardian by the administrators. Hold
There is no evidence that the guardian
in taking this course, acted in bad faith or i'm
prudently, nor that the purchasers had any
notice that the equitable claims of tho plain.
till could be urged after this action Of his
guardian, and that no had no such right 10
the land rs would entitle him to disturb the
defendants, who were in possession, with the
legal title. (Deney vs. Stricklings, 10 Tex.
Gould, associate justice
Mary Kocourelt ys. II. Msrak OF al. The
case below was dismissed on demurrer to the
petition, and two questions arc raised
whether tho allegations presented such legal
durefs on the part of tao husband as on be-
half Of the wife should avoid the deed to the
homestead, and if 50. was the purchaser
charged with notice oft The general doc.
trine of this court upon these questions ia,
that the certificate Of the officer TO tho seps.
rate acknowledgements the wife to y deed
of conveyance is conclusive Of the facts
therein stated, except in case Of fraud or i'm.
position, and that tho rights Of third par
ties will not BIZ affected unless they p,rtici-
pated in such fraud or had notice thereof.
I AuthOrity: Wiley Va. Prince, 81 Tcx..
G40) 1t was tho evidcntin intention of tho log
islature that the conveyance ofthe wife TO DO
binding, must ba made willingly. (Reyiscd
Statutes, art. 4,Sl0) Tested by these cases
tho allegations in the petition we're sufficient,
if sustained by competent testimony, to show
such moral coercion over tho wife and sim
prsonmont of boz mind" and such notice to
the purchaser, Msrsh, as should avoid the
deed. (Louion VS.. Blythe, q Penn, state,
26.) Reversed and romAnded. Bonner, aaso
ciale Justice.