Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-06-17
CIVIL COURT OF APPEALS.

No. ln2.-H. j. Barnes, appellant, VS.. n. II.
Macarthur, appellee. Appeal from the
district court " Wllbareer county


Macarthur appellee. Appeal rom the
district court ~ Wllbarger county
CONCLUSIONS or fAtE
on the 10Th day Of March, 1885. +. John.
son conveyed 10 Mrs. Ahbie Mcbride the
land In controversy. the decd rrciting the
conveyance to he In consideration or tLe
sum OF 81 IN hand pail. Al the time OF
THIS conveyance the grantee, Mrs, Ahbe
Mcbride, was the wife Of Dave Mcbride,
gnl the real consideration was the sum OF
evidence Is sufficient to sustain the finding
Of the court below that the Intention Ot
Dave Mclirdc In having the deed made TO
Ills wife was 10 make the land her separate
property. In October, 1870 Dave Mcbride
made u verbal contract with appellant Me.
Arthur by which the latter was 10 have the
possession OF the premises upon certain
terms therein specified for the terra OF
three years, and 1t was the expectation of
the parties that this contract would be re-
duccd 20 writing, but this wns never done
In pursuance of this contract Macarthur tea
possession Of the premises and sowed about
twenty acres h. wheat thereon, but did not
move lis family In the house until after
the execution Of the deed To appellant here
matter set forth. ON January B. 1871, Dave
Mclirlde' the husband, conveyed by war
ranty deed tile land In controversy to up-
pellunt. but there Ii no evidence to show
that valuable consideration was paid for
ms conveyance nor that appellant dld not
have notice Of the fact that the land CON-
yeyed was the separate property OF Mrs.
Abble Mcbride. After the execution of this
deed, but before appellant look possession
ut
with his family, Into the house thereon.
aud this suit was Instituted by appellant
In the form Of an action OF trespass tu Try
title TO uispossess him. The court below
found in favor OF appellee, lrom which this
appeal Is prosecuted,
OPINION.
This being an action OF "tresnnss to try
tUc' appellant must recover " nj all, upon
tho strength Of his own, aud not upon ;hC
weakness OF his adyersSrys title liughcs
VS.. Lane Texas, 2s9. The land being the
husbands deed To appellant could convey mo
tile thereto, H. $. Art. jjO Cameron vs..
Boutwell, ~ Texas, GIG. II is therefore
not necessary for Ms To enquire as to the
validity OF the lease under which appel
lee claims. Appellant having ITO title could
nov usppNSrsS appellee, whether the latter
had valid claim ur not. Appellant con.
tends that Notwithstanding the land innv
have been the separate property Of Mrs
Mcbride, yet inuslnurh Ms an nIoperty nc.
CURED hy purchase during murfuge Is IRE.
suhrd To De community property whether
NE Ir"l be tnecn In the name " the hus.
hnhu or wife, lie should he protected az an
ihhnrrut purchaser hy reason OF his deed
FROM the husband; but ns will be- seen from
ihe conclusions NJ fact there Is no evidence
III tue record To show that upDplnnt mini
a valuable consideration AMI we think ms
necessary IN order TO enable him to &C.
uulrc Mrs. Mcliride's land under a drrd
from lgr husband alone, sicilrdc vs. liun.
Huss ~ Texas, III; Parker w. Coon, 90
Texas, III; McKHmty VS. Thorn. 81 Texns
vs.. Stokcr vs. GoOliuhn, o. Texas 3igl.
krnrhN vs.. Moody. ~ Toxins MI
We hhd no error In the judgment rendered
ny ne court hrluw and II Is therefore in
Al mugs affirmed. READ.
Associate Justice