The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-04-27

him to the land, ana thereafter suit
brought. he could not. by contract, give
such right to third party, having notice
OF pending suit. lEwell on Fixtures, p.
| Al; HuebschRann VS.. McHenry, % Wis.
6S5.l Judgment dissolving Injunction
and in favor Of third patty, reversed;
and judgment rendered for appellant
perpetuating injunction, and for costs
Gould, G. j.
Jacob Watkins and wife VS.. H. b. Hall
appeal from Grayson county. A, sur
Viving husband, to satisfy balance in
stallments due as purchase money to the
state, and other debts, sold land bought
during the life of the wife to B, who con-
veyed the same to G. d, as one of the
children of said wife, claims one-half of
the property above as her mothers COM
munity interest therein. After the two
aforesaid conveyances, A qualified as sur
vivor to administer the community estate
OF himself and deceased wife, and sold
the land In question. Held, that the sur
vlvor OF the community has power TO sell
the community property for the purpose
1891 and the property being community
homestead, the law would not alter the
rule. That A may have parted with his
interest by the first deed, could not, after
he qualified under the statute, pre-
vent him from administering the resi-
cue OF the community property. Any
partition Of the land by and d subse-
not have enabled d and B
to withdraw any part of the property
from the survivors, administration.
When community debts settled from the
sale. ID would be entitled to her share of
Inheritance from her mother. Law of
acknowledgements materially same now
as under former regulation, except in the
form set out, and latter not imperative !;
and an acknowledgment that "the per-
son was well known TO the officer, etc i,
serves to identify the signature, ETC., as
well rs words of statute, "known to be
person whose signature Is subscribed
70 the foregoing instrument" Affirmed
Stayton j.
II. ID. Brooks and wife VS.. R. X. Chat
ham; appeal from Cooke county.-De-
PENDANT below purchased tract of TWEEN
ty acres of wood land, to appropriate lat
terly as q homestead in connection with
his prairie farm, an q nallss'Sd ais.
upon he then lived, and sub
sequent to levy of attachment by
plaintiff, but before aware of It's
existence, defendant began use of
the woodland, In conformity with
Intention of purchase. Held, that
II the tracts had been contiguous and not
exceeding the maximum designated by
the constitution for q rural homestead,
the land in controversy would have
virtue of common use and
ownership. [S2 Tex. 451.l But when
the lands are separated, there must be
such an act or use rs will amount to q
designation of homestead of the subse-
quently acquired parcel as fully as the
original; and ii has well settled by this
court that q mere ownership compiled
.gsn ia l.
Texas. 605.l The attachment having
been levied before designation as home
stead, such appropriation as such cannot
work exemption. (5I Texas, 559.1 When
the wife answers, she Is in court as fully
as though served; and q sustaining of q
demurrer to her answer does not deprive
the court OF jurisdiction over her person.
Affrmed.-Stay ton, j.
Chas. d. Grace, administrator ct al VS..
Martha b. Hanks ct al, appeal from
Fannin county.-Long held by the court,
that the testimony of a single witness
about the declarations OF a deceased per-
son, alleged to be q trustee, is not suffi-
cient to establish a title to land in an
alleged certui que trust, IN opposition TO
q deed upon its face purporting to con-
vey legal title to such alleged trustee.
Besides the danger of Misunderstanding
and the treachery of memory, the more
serious objection to the sutficiency OF
such evidence. is that no means are left
for contradiction. 9 Texas, 1927. And
nothing but an open necessity authorizes
an exception TO the general rule. (Here
follows a lengthy decussion of the details
of the evidence in question: W lille proof
of such declarations, in the present case,
would not have been sufficient to sustain
the verdict, yet, being of nature to ad-
NIT contradiction, there was an entire
failure to rebnt and, as the charge pre-
sented the question fairly to the jury, the
verdict cannot now be disturbed. The
right of a creditor to ignore fraudulent
sale by the debtor, inure to the benefit OF
the purchaser at the execution sale, to
his vendees, and they may assert the in.
validity of such sale. l4S Texas, 1881 AT
firmed.-Stayton, j.