Case Name: Emily W. Brackett v. George P. Devine
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 194
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emily W. Brackett v. George P. Devine.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 194–196

Head Matter:
Emily W. Brackett v. George P. Devine.
Where the plaintiff averred, that the surviving wife retained possession, under the act of the 26th August, 1856, supplementary to the act better defining the marital rights of parties, (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 4646 to 4653,) and inventoried property, sold a portion of it, and paid some of the debts in full, the averments are sufficient to make her individually liable for a community debt which she had allowed, and had been approved by the chief justice of the county.
Where the plaintiff sues the wife, as survivor of the community, it is necessary to aver, as breach, that neither the deceased husband nor the wife has paid the debt. And the breach will not be deduced from inference.
Error from Bexar. The case was tried before Hon. Edmund J. Davis, one of the district judges.
Devine sued Brackett upon a promissory note, executed by her deceased husband, payable to his own order, $1,085 05, with 10 per cent, interest, which was averred to be indorsed to Devine. He charged, that O. B. Brackett, the husband, left considerable property, and that the defendant filed an inventory, and took possession, as survivor of the community property. He admitted a credit of $900, and that the defendant had acknowledged the claim, subscribing herself as administratrix, and it was approved by the chief justice; that the defendant came into possession of property of the value of $8,000 or $9,000; that she paid some of the debts in full, and some of her individual debts, thereby rendering herself liable to pay the petitioner the amount of his claim, “which she seems indisposed to pay, 'at least not until it suits her convenience to do so.”
There was no other breach. Prayer for judgment against her personally, or in the alternative that she be decreed to sell property to pay the same. The defendant made default, and judgment was rendered against her for the balance of $341 40. She assigned for error what would. be a general demurrer, that she was not liable in her individual capacity; that the judgment was contrary to law; and that it did not appear but that the debt would have been paid by the estate of O. B. Brackett.
C. TJpson, for plaintiff in error,
argued the case upon the statute of the 26th August, 1856. (O. & "W. Dig., Arts. 812, 813; Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 4646 to 4653.) He contended that no such averments were made as rendered the wife hable to suit.
Ho brief for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Wheeler, O. J.
—We think the averments of the peti tion sufficient to fix liability on the defendant. The community property must be held bound for the payment of the community debts.' If the surviving wife assume the exclusive control and disposition of the community property, under the provisions of the statute, (O. & W. Dig., Art. 810, et seq.,) she takes it subject to the payment of those debts, and becomes liable for their payment to the extent of the property. The case stated in the petition shows that the defendant had rendered herself so liable. But the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action, in that he does not aver a breach of the contract sued on. He does not aver that the intestate, in his lifetime, or the defendant, since his death, had failed or refused to pay the note. The conclusion may be deduced, by argument and inference, from the averments of the petition, that a part of the original indebtedness remains unpaid. But the fact should appear by direct averment. An averment of the breach of the contract is essential to show a cause of action. (Holman v. Criswell, 13 Tex., 38.) The plaintiff must allege such facts as would, were they admitted to be true, entitle him to a judgment; and the facts must appear by direct averment, and not by argument. or inference. As the petition is wanting in such averment of a breach of the contract, it is manifestly insufficient to support the judgment; which must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded, to enable the plaintiff to amend his . petition, should he see proper.
Reversed and remanded.