The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-07-05

~
q pa u as-,-t ~
SNt IN : 4, tssNA.ls
case ''h \, y
iGe iisht rftts osS9us
sta,aiy. aut Is pfrsta
laws, II ropUn4,; aG% Eigi,
for who ne lus laflt SssrN'
shown thai ,lc lli 'ea e3tG
terial as the pJeHf, 'su RttN5
dulyed that the nha.1.I. '1g rhsah "
meut was rendered ,,o3ii be tbs A.
still due, cannot b. maintained. FNN
the law did not require the record to
the amount still due upOn the judgll
but the legislature having changed \
every par ocular it cannot DO presumed
legislature would do a senseless thing, an.
the omission is fatal, This position Is sup
ported by the subsequent provisions OF the
statute providing the manner OF causing
the record to show subsequent credits upon
the limitation Of the judgment and also
that sufficient space shall be left at the foot
of each recorded abstract for the entry OF
credits and satisfaction, and it is the duty
OF the clerk to enter credits when furnished
with the data. A Judgment lien is purely
creation of law and has existence only as
provided by statute. In creating such lien
the legislature could afiix such conditions,
impose such limitation and give the lien
such operation rs it might will. The legis-
lature intending to prevent the wee mat
existed whereby plaintiff and defendant nv
collision might TO delendani
lands as against his creditor by an appar.
ent judgment, when in fact that judgment
L. Ia. l,,
material requirement of the statute, and
unless complied with no lien exists. AS
the record itself was so kept that it consti-
tuted an index as well as well as record
it wa. a sufficient compliance with the law.
Affirmed. A. II. Watts. Judge.
j. Zorn vs. Il. II, Tarven and wife; from
Guadalupe county, On the trial below. the
husband WAS permitted to testify but rs he
was only nominal party to the suit, the
real object of the suit being to protect the
separate property of the wife, although his
testimony might he held erroneous, AZ
Tex, go. yet il is unnecessary to express
a positive opinion, IA the testimony Of
Tarven was wholly immatcrial and could
have had no influence upon the decision OF
the case. This case was before the court on
q former appeal IS Tex, 80 The appel
liant insists that the purchase of the land
by Miss Y. At he former execution sale was
not n real purchase for her own benefit, but
was loan Of so much mruav to Il. Il y.
That the land was purchased by Miss Y.
and conveyed to Mrs. y to protect it from
rs creditors, Miss Y. retaininG lien upon
il to secure The money which she had al.
vancpd The npprllees maintain that the
purchase by Miss Y. was . real purchase,
ard that the subsequent Conveyance to
Mrs, I. was gift to her cau lin The land be.
ing changed in tho hands ofthe owner with
the amount which sire hnd pai orit Com.
mcntng upon the case Mr.. Justice Moore
SAYS: "Consijering that Miss Y. acquired
bv her purchase an ABSOLUTE and perfect
titlc, coupled in no wav with any condition
of trust whatever, yet as the conveyance
from her to Mrs T. pmpnrts to hc on nh
onerou5 consideration, IN tho absence OF
clear and satisfactory proof TINT the lind
was purchased with Mrs T'g separate
fund ana that THE conveyance though in
furu A sale was in fact n nit we m,t,t Nc.
gard II as belonging TO the community "a.
tate OF appellees y
Tho learned JUDGE cites from The tpsti
iuony two objects which Mise Y. had in
purchasing The land
First, 70 make secure investment of
her money.
Second To benefit her contip Mira = 4.
that the land was worth Ear NOR, lhw tbc
money consideration recitcl in the decd .
that the consideration Of the Crny,vauce
from Miss Y. tn Mrs. y WIS plrtW n
money consi sheraton, nlrtly love ami anpc.
ton, aud that Miss 7. hui Son rrp,.d
with interest all that sh, h,1r,.l ann ~
the land.
Ii will be observed that alilturL tIc t,s-
timony shows that Miss y. lind brrp l..
paid, II does not show from Whit s5,-,,
the money came, whether IL was snpar,t,
or community funds
Tho opinion concludes. "lf v.g nat
shown that this money cnus;d,r-
alton was mid into the s,n.,
rate funds Of Mrs. n az ;rJr"1
that she had any separate funds r,o,
which il could have been mid. il conuot mo
said that as Ia SO much of tho lnnG con-
veyed in consideration of tbc rcnnyp,cnt tn
Miss Y. of the amount which II 'cnsI Lor
the presumption of commnnitv nronert,, IL
rebutted. r'''N''' 80
Granting that 80 much of the land ne Il
in excess IN yalue of this ann nf St S5o S.as
gift to Mrs, II and thereiore ber sansr'
ate estate, still, so FAR A ANYTHING is shown
to the contrary mn undivided intcrrst in
part Of the land was community nroncr,v
and as such, subject To apnellnnl's cycrn :
ton.
The same nuestions was ami, nro.ar,, al
Tia oucst;ons ,vha,l was Saa,,, l,aGSoi,'1u'
Miss y, was n real nnrchosA ar n shon, r "S
detormined hv ths Court bc,ow "S;;s, WIS
pellant' md 40 Ana mn,hin, IN I ~ neo ~
to satisfy MS that the daterminaiion ,V WY.
wrong ''o 'o'e' '''''''''o" was
1t was proyen that orter Tho conv,r,roo
by Miss Y 10 Mrs r. rort Of ~ ~
,ya, soil .,I 80 Al ~ '" Wy '"','