The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-15
NEW QUESTION.
Husband May Authorize His wife 10 Sell |
and Convey Her Separate Estate.

Husband May Authorize His wife TO Sell
and Convey Her separate Estate.
Tho following gynongis Of an opinion of
tho court OF civil appeals at Galveston. de-
| llNercd last week, rs upon n new question.
| The court holds aS above stuffed. The prop
| oriy involved was The old Dnderdonk place
| OUT Main street
John Hogcra appellant vs.. Martha u.
| Roberts 81 nl appclicrs, from Harris com
| ty. suit for trespasa 10 try title TO ivc
acres In Houston. Pilintin und defendants
claim tillc from Martha Griswold. de-
| ceased Defendants were permitted, over
| objection of plaintiff, TO road In evidence
a power OF attorney from Josiah Griswold
| for her lands in Texas and thoy were also
attorney IN fact 90 sign his name To deed
| for her lands iu rcNos. and they wcrc also
| permitted. over objections. TO present IA
| decd OF conveyance 10 H. A. Shepherd. CON
| vcying the land IN controversy, executed
| by her for herself aud nv attorney IN fact
| for her husband The Jury returned u YER
| diet for defendants. ana Judgment was rem
| d"red accordingly. The court holds that
| the power OF attorney from Grlswold TO
l his wife. and also the deed executed for
bond to Shepherd are In due form, nnd
under them the land was conveyed In fee
TO Shepherd. nnless as TIA" appellant In
sists. that deed from husband and wife.
purportng 10 convey the land OF the wife,
Is Invalid unless tho deed IL executed Joint
" by the husband In propria persona with
the wife. 'fhis precise question has not,
80 far as the court ~ aware. been decided
by the Texas supreme court. 1t seems that
tho contention Of appellant Is sustained by
the decision of the supreme court OF Calf
fornia. These decisions are based upon the
assumption that the law, by requiring that
every sale, 10 be operative and binding
upon the VIE must have the assent OF her
husband. In for tho protection Df the wife
against the fraud or imposition OF third
parties, and that by such requirement the
law Imposes upon the husband the duty OF
ADVISING, aud aiding his wife in making
sale or her property, ana that duty can
not be ovaded and IL not discharged by au-
thoiizins tho wife. by power of attorney,
TO execute "A Joint deed. This holding OF
thc California cour, h not In accordance
with the spirit of the DECISIONS Of the au-
preme court of this State. II has never
neen heia OF intimnted by the supreme
court of this State that II Is essential 10
make good a conveyance for the wife's
separate property. that tho wife must be |
advised or counsrled by the husband IN re-
~ expressly declared In Riley VS. Wilson. |
20 Texas Y2. that. while the prfyy exam
nation and acknowledgment of the wife |
required by the statute is essential to the
conveyance. the advice ana couns 4 OF the /
husband are not essential Tie statute re- /
quires that there shall be n Joint convey |
separate property OF the latter. but the |
statute does not say how or In what way
the husband syhali do thls--whcther he
ssnaii 90 80 IN person Or by an attorney IN |
TACT. IL thn not be doubted, we think that
the husband may, by his sepa raie power OF
attorney authorize another to execute for
him. Jointly with his wife. conveyance or |
her property. II this power can be dele.
gated to "A stranger. why may IL not be |
conferred upon bis w,fe2 IT IL. N our
opinion, immater,nl whether the convey
ney In fact OF the husband or by separate
deeds OF the husband and wife or nv IN |
ms Gaze, by deed executed by the wife In |
lsF own rignt ana az the attorney in feet |
iirmcd.
Opinion by Peasants. ].