Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-07-03

UilV two Witnesses nrOuuceu nv Tile
nnDrilecs 10 NAVE lint the purehnsc
money mid for tle land In controversy
was not aruircd In Texas testified that
they did moi think Thomas A ntalpy fol.
lowed nny business while IN Gainesville
Tex, eNccnt looking after the estate of
Green Stallcup.
Ii appears however that he qualified
In December. 1852, As administrator OF
the estate of James Stallcnp, dccea Sod,
a brother OF Green Slnlirup There Is no
evidence that he ever acuugcd any
money or property in the state of Mis-.
souri,, or that he ever hrOngh, any with
him TO the state of Texas The evi.
dencc does not show when, or precisely
how much nf The nurrhnse money was
paid for this land hut We think Ii should
lie inferred thai none was paid earlier
than eightecn mouths after they came
10 Texas Ii appears Tint the land was
bought ON "A credit OF twelve months
undcr nm order Of The probate court
mnde moro than six months after they
cnmo, and during that time they resided
az Gainesville, TcNns 10 hold that
land that was In part paid for with the
aeparntc property of Thomas A. Rraley,
we should have 10 presume that he own.
ed property In Missouri, that ln brought
II 10 Texas and used Ii In paving for
The land. which would he 10 le,mce one
prcsumption from another In order to
uvprcoinn n nresnmniion. which tbe law
will not permit tRailwny Us. Porter
M Teyns 'ogm Ifndpr his state al the
ntnnf 40 or, r,,st,,,intJ 90 hold ti,,t
fhn nrrsnmntl,n thot nrnn,rt. nnrrbn.rl
during marriage Is community property,
vns moi su0iricntiv rrbntted Ia iustify
A finding Ia tho contrary. Our conclns.
ion fr"m Tho Statement Of fnct ls TINT
the land IN controversy when purchased
l,, Tbnmns 4 nr,iov an credit Of
twelve months. became Tho community
property Of himself and wife Eppcrson
49, Homes a. Texas l25 The other
Gptlings AZ fnrt In "a FAR ns tbey do moi
conflict with Ills conclusion are apnrov-
cal. We conclude therefore, that ap-
pellnnt Clara Il. Grow l. entitled To re-.
rnvprv. ns heir of her deceased mother
an undivided oue.fourth interest In the
land In controversy: hut thar the other
nunrllant IL moi entitlpl 10 recover any-
thing, her right being barred by the
statues of limitation.
By the ninth assignment Of error ap-
nrllnnts contend that, "a TO i, d. and j.
w. Robinson, Elizabeth Grow * not
barred because she WIS married
woman when the deeds under which thcy
claim were placed upon record The
answer 10 this Is, that her replication
In avoidance Of the pleas of limitation did
not assert the disability ~ uoVprturc,
but only that Of infancy The same nn-
swcr dispOscs of the eighth assignment
Of error NJ 10 The Defendant StnnsbwY
NV NNnhfA " wv N'HAh ANNAhNNAfNA ~
error. that as 10 the defendants j. u.
Murtin, there was no plea Of the Ave
years statute, IL, that the ten years
statute has set up the plea and seems
to have been sustained by thc proof.
We conclude, then, that the indglnrnt
rendered against appellant Elizabeth
Grow should be affirmed
H. X urged ~ support OF mo judgment
against Clara IL, Grow that II there was
error IN the conclusion INIT the hnd ~
dMpute hvcnme me separate property ui
Thomas y. braley, 4 must y" sustained
ny tue farther conclusion OF NM upon
which " was rested Ihnt 'hongh tue exc
culloh SAFE TO ~ r. Scoll' nlnue IN Juhr,
lStu, under whom npp,llres ci4lnl, was
void u was neNeflileless suulclent 20
pass lhe superior ilile ren'nlninE N w
Stnllcup estate on iho BrouhI thni slld
usihte ,h9u received lhe pen'nt u me
SAFE. MS ~ MS 10 US 70 pc IN uhWnf-
mntfd Application OF tue ANONYMOUS