Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-17
COURT OF APPEALS.
Full Text Of Decisions Rendered in the Fofl
Worth District

Court Of civil appeals, Second district b.
-. Tarltun. chief Justice: II. -. Head
and ]. W. stephens, associate Justices;
| w, l.. Hun clerk.
| VI. y. Swcarugeu appellant vs.. H. a.
and y A. Reed, appellces; appeal
OPINION.
| Oncudiug findings cr fact and couclu-
siUus of law.)
This is an appeal prosecuted by NJ
| y SWyGrluguu from u Judgment rendered
! by tho district court Of Childrcss county
i behalf ol Fannie a. Reed. the wife
of Juucs A. Reed This lady, joined
by her husband. brought this suit I'm
Ihc nature of an action Of trVsplss tu
try tide to recover from appellant, NJ.
y Swcuriugnu. 100 her separate interest
trn ucr's of land out Of tltc sOuth-half
| of section 5IG, block II, Ia Childrrss
county, Tex. This section was located
JOS virtue of certificate No. 22SS granted
10 tho Waco and Northwestern railroad
company.
In 1856 the state land board under the
act of lNe8, and ON tho application of
u. a. Heed, sold aud awarded to him
the ,outh-half of the section described,
which was school hard.
jan. IL, 1885, IumCs A. Reed. for the
rccityd consideration Of $3.50. executed
% deed with clause Of general warranty
to his wife, Fannie a, Reed. This deed
contains no recital that the conveyance
is intended for the separate use and
benefit Of the wife. II purports TO be-
executed In thi'drcss county, Texas
The lund conveyed Is dcscibpd therein
,'ns the south half OF section 5T6. block
II, Waco aud Northwestern Railway
cuWpuuys survey. certificate No. t-2NG."
IA s.alaf l.. L..
W situated is not rpcitcd. The decd
properly Acknowledged wls recorded iu
ihillrrss county. Inn 49, 1883. 10 Is
alleged IN the petition that the proper
number Of the certificate referred tu I'm
the deed b. 42SS and chat the number ro-
,iied IN the decd as l-2SN was inserted
10y mistake. James a. Reed the gruut-
or. testified that the decd should huy,
rccitvd the certificate numbered as 9-2SS
instead of l-2SG, that the former is the
true certificate number of section $40.
On this conveyance rests the claim Of
the upupllpo, Fannie a. Reed Aug g.
lN'O. James \. Reed filed un instrument
designating 200 acrps of the south-hnlf
OF section 5tG as the homestead of him
self md Wmily On the same day hr
executed to i. w Swuuriugou a decd
conveying ton acres out of the south.
half of the survey named. the tom acres.
however not being included loo tho home
W
W. Swcnringen conveyed the ten acres
named 90 VI. $. SwcauuEen, the appel.
liant herein.
The appellant aud the appellee. Fan.
ur \. Reed, claim under James A. Reed
us common source of title.
CONCLUSIONS or Law.
The two assignments Of error inserted
IN appellant brief contain u effect the
snlur complaint, viz: That the cpurt
erred In concluding as "a matter of law
that hy The dccd FROM James A. Rood
to his wife, Fannie A. Rood the for
lurr was diygHieI of an title tO the entire
suutI-lult Including the ten ucres u
controversy OF section 5IG, block II,
Waco and Northwestern Railway com.
pauy's survey, located 10y l1tuc of Ger.
uilCltc 2-2SS iu Childrcss county.
J. As the appellant dcruigns his title
from James a. Reed RS the common
source We lind no merit In his several
propositions asserting the existence of
an outstanding title IN the statc because
found 10y us 10 oXisD that
Reed failed 90 comply with tGe
statute of 1888 providing for
the sale of school land. The appel
liant win not be permitted TO impngn
the tide of Reed under which he clnims
but j. held to admit les validity. Glover
W.. Thomas. 10 Texas sos
=, The deed from James 4. Reed to
his wife Indicates ON lis face, We fLipi
am intention boy him To vest i'm lpr ps
her separate property the land therein
described In u transaction betweeu
husband and wife it rs not necessary
that the decd in order 20 have the efect !
referred 10, should contain a recital fbut
the conveyance Is intended for thp soma. /
rnte USE of the wife Lewis vs. Siu,n,,
~ Texas, 40; Callahan SIS. Houston
- leNNs, ftt only creditors or sub. !
l.4a #fHN
question the validity ot such deed DE- |
Gurza VS. Galyon IS Texas 81: Brown |
vs. Brown, US Texas. 5G Junes A |
Reed testified, that be- executed TO |
dred M question tO his wife FOR Inc mr.
pose of inducing her to come TO Tevas |
ana I'VE win Nun; that he did not intend !
ny the execution of the decd that thp |
property her,ia described should bnco,nc
The separate property of his ,yifp; thYt |
he had intended that himself nnd hi, /
wife SHOULD own Sc equally. liying ON n
uuu ual9s VI iogtthcr; that hc did NOT
v9Wmumclle To- his wife Tint such wor,
ms iutrAuous In making the deed" me !
court in q finding of fact holds This cri
dehcr Ia he lnadmissible aud declines -
roNtlott NJ m arriving ut his copcin
Sl.hs' OtNtr u proposition In apppllnnt's
bflel 20 the effect that The evidrurs
shows ihht II was not the intention nj
James A. keed To vest the tiup in Nj
10 !
s9Nkht il pn Nrgumeutadye way 10 com
pam ot 'hls hnding of the court. Ii wa,
tue uuty OF the appellant II he desirs5
10 invoke a review hy as of this nctio,,
OF !he court ~ complain of il by sneci6,
ASSESSMENT of error As he haa fo1nS
80 to suggest the question we deelin" ~
consider b. We think that bod tbe 49,, 20
Welsncd The testimony, and. notwib'
s@4dlne' found Tint it was the iptentior
~ lolUvN A. heei 20 convey The prOnartv
70 ti% sefaran hencht of his wife fsVs
Nona ur sufficient evidence gatbera3
i.9th 1te terms of the Heed itself to ans
!slu nus hnding. We express mo- o,in
il9n' however on the aamissibiBfv 'n
tAs 4a'emeut of The husband. w
- alpears that at the date ~
!.e execution of This instrument la,vs
hegd mad n'ade 20 the state only oSS ma ~
, ,2v"' ol VIZ purchase money OF the lsn3
men, ,N'5V'',1hg indebtedness not havinn
th'hred On this fact appellant fc,ht
itee yonlepuen that the contract bet,ysee,s.
sAseI ana his. yife lbaymg nece ,Mse,
,fivrence 10 future payments for
iall 20 be made ont al tbs , tNl the