The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-07-13
COURT DECISIONS
synopsis Of Opinions Of supreme Court.

LeGlefse Go. W.. Gotzendanor q Fer
rlg from Ellis county. Appellants having
Judgment against one o. T., had the same
duly recorded to obtain judgment lien
thereon Appellants claim title to the lots
In controversy by virtue Of an execution Is
sued upon said Judgment Appellees pur.
chased the property after the recording OF
the Judgment. The question presented is
as TO the suiliCiency OF the record OF the
Judgment. Held, to create a judgment
lien upon land under the Revised Statutes,
IL is necessary to have recorded in the
county where the land is situated an alb
stract of the judgment. Among the requis-
| ties of the abstract the statute provides IL
shall STOW: THE amount for which the
| same was rendered and the amount still
! due upon the same" The abstract in this
case omitted to state the amount still due
/ upon the judgment When examined IN
the light Of the various provisions OF the
statute, and in connection with former
| laws, the proposition that as the amount
for which the judgment was rendered is
shown that the omission would be lmm2-
! terial as the presumption would be in
dulged that the amount for which the JuuS-
mcnt was rendered would be the amount
still due, cannot be maintained. Formerly
the law did not require the record TO show
! the amount still due upon the Judgment,
| but the legislature having changed 1t in
every par ocular it cannot be presumed the
| legislature would do q senseless thing, and
| 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
| nd tiefa
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 afliX such conditions
| impose such limitation and give the lien
such operation as it might will. The legis-
lature intending to prevent the, vice that
collision might to defendants
| lands as against his creditor by an appar-
ent Judgment, when in fact that judgment
| had been satisfied the remedy becomes
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 a record
it was sufficient compliance with the law.
Affirmed. A. T. Watts, judge.
]. Zorn VS.. e. r. Tarven and wife; from
Guadalupe county. On the trial below the
husband was permitted to testify, but as 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 be held erroneous, As
Tex, 80. yet it is unnecessary to express
positive opinion, as the testimony OF
Tarven was wholly immaterial and could
have had no influence upon the decision of
the case. This case was before the court on
former appeal As Tex, $40. The appel
liant insists that the purchase of the, land
by Miss Y. at the former execution sale was
not real purchase for her own benefit, but
was loan of so much money to b. X. I.
That the land was purchased by Miss Y.
and conveyed to Mrs. 7. to protect it from
rs creditors, Miss Y. retaining lien upon
it to secure the money which she had adj
yanced The appellees maintain that the
purchase by Miss Y. was a real purchase,
and that the subsequent conveyance to
Mrs. Z. was gift to her cousin, the land be-
ing changed III the hands OF the owner with
the amount which she had paid for it. Com
menting upon the case Mr.. Justice Moore
says: considering that Miss Y. acquired
by her purchase an absolute and perfect
title, coupled in no way with any condition
of trust whatever, yet as the conveyance
from her to Mrs. 7. purports to be on an
onerous consideration, in the absence OF
clear and satisfactory proof that the land
was purchased with Mrs. It's separate
fund and that the conveyance though in
form sale, was in fact q gift, We must re-
gard it as belonging to the community es'
tate of appellees."
The learned Judge cites from the testi
mony two objects which Miss Y. had in
purchasing the land i
First, To make secure investment OF
her money.
Second, To benefit her cousin, Mrs. T.
that the land was worth far more than the
money consideration recited in the deed |
that the consideration of the conveyance
from Miss Y. to Mrs. Il. was partly a
money consideration, partly love and affec--
ton, and that Miss Y. had been repaid
with interest all that she had paid out for
the land.
1t will be observed that although the tes-
timony shows that Miss Y. had been re- |
paid, it does not show from what source |
the money came, whether it was separate |
or community funds.
Tho opinion concludes; at was not |
shown that this money consider
rtie funds of Mrs. T., or indeed
that she had any separate funds from
which il could have been paid; it connot be
said that as to so much of the land con-
viewed in consideration Of the repayment to
Miss Y. of the amount which 1t cost her,
The presumption of community property is
Granting that so much Of the land as is
N excess in value of this sum of 81 go was
, pift TO Mrs. T., and therefore her seper-
lte estate, still, so far as anything is shown
% the contrary, an undivided interest la
,art of the land was community property,
md as such, subject TO appellants execu-
ion. Il
The same questions was again presented.
The questions, whether the purchase by
Hiss Y. was a real purchase or a sham, was
a L.vs hnInW "a an.
RELIANT. and we find nothing in the record |
o satisfy us that the determination was
wrong.
" Miss Y, TO Mrs. T., part of the land
vas sold, and from the proceeds OF the sale /,
he amount mentioned in the bond as the
together with the interest,
vas prepaid her.
The court in passing upon the case must
ave considered this proof as completely /;
ebutiing the presumption that the land
vas bought with the community property I.
fthe husband and wife. If Miss Y, in I.
tead of conveying the whole OF the land TO .
er cousin and retaining a lien upon II TO
ecure 10 herself part Of its value,had her
m sold a part of the land and conveyed
ne remainder to her cousin, she would !
ave accomplished directly what the proof =
rows was indirectly done.
appellant insists that as the bond from y
Iiss Y. TO Mrs. T. showed that the prop >
-tv was acquired by apparent onerous title =
,e Judgment lien attached thereto ana IN =
Dsence Of proof that the creditor had =
1owledze that il was the wife's separate ?
-operty.n his lien gave him the superior u
aim, referring us 10 81 Texas. g.
III we admit the correctness OF the propo-
ion. still It's interest in the land was "
thing more than an apparent equity.
iss Y. held the title and she held IL for q
.rself and Mrs. T. A purchaser from I. II
Juld have been put upon inquiry as 70 81
e nature Of Miss Us interest in the land,
"A have been informed Of the real cbarac- M
: OF the title. THIS would have been fatal In
her clsim,6s a purchaser. rs Judgment "
N cannot place him in any better position. b,