Case Name: Chappell v. McIntyre
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1852
Citations: 9 Tex. 161
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chappell v. McIntyre.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
Chappell v. McIntyre.
where the partios submit an agreed statement of the facts to the court for Us judgment upon tho questions of law arising on the case submitted, all other pleadings will be disregarded on an appeal from the judgment.
The questions of law upon the case stated as to separate properly are settled in favor of the appellee by the eases of McIntyre v. Chappell, el Tex. R., 1ST,) and Love and Wife v. Robertson, (7 Id., !>.) (Note 30.)
Appeal from "Washington. After suit brought and answer filed the parties filed the following agreed statement of the facts and submitted it for the final judgment of the court in the case:
“It is agreed between the parties to the above-entitled cause that: the plain- “ till is tilt; guardian of Sarah McIntyre; that ¿Carriel C. Chappel, wife of the “defendant, is tho mother of said Sarah; that James McIntyre, father of said •“Sarah, and said Harriet intermarried in the State of Tennessee on the first •“day of January, 18-10; that two weeks after their marriage said James •“left his wife in Tennessee and came to Texas, arriving in Washington county “in March, 18-10, bringing with him some negroes; that he improved land, ■“planted a crop, and after about three months returned to Tennessee, where “lie remained until the spring of 1841; that in March, 1841, lie returned to “Texas with his wife, and resided on the place in Washington county, which ■“lie had previously improved, until his death in 1S42; that when said James “returned from Texas to Tennessee lie sold the lamí lie inherited from bis “father’s estate, that was his before their marriage, to Daniel Reader on a “credit; that the. money sued for, to wit, $235, was received by defendant of •“A. W. Bumpuss, who had so collected it of Reader in 1845; that if the court “shall he of opinion that said debt due from said Bumpass was community “property between said James and Harriet', his wife, now wife of defendant, “the judgment to lie against defendant for half the amount and the costs to “go as the court may direct. If the court is of opinion that said debt due “from Bumpass was'not community, then judgment to he entered for the “plaintiff-. It is further agreed that,"by the iaw in force in the State of Tcu-“ueswee at the time the marriage between said James and Harriet was cole-“brated, all tin* personal property of the wife became the property of her •“lm-baiid; that, tho plea of set-off ami reconvention liled in this cause iswith- •“ drawn, and that matter is settled in the suit for the negroes. September “17th, 1851.” Signed by the attorneys of both parties.
Judgment was entered on this statement of the case in favor of the plaintiff for $25» and interest thereon from the 25th day of December, 1845, and costs ■of suit.
The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was coutrary to law and because iuvere.-t had been allowed on an open account. Motion continued and no further action had thereon.
In the Supreme Court the defendant in error remitted the interest.
Note 36. — Oliver v. Robertson, 41 T., 422.
J. D. Oiddincjs and J. E. Shepard, for appellant.
A. M. Lewis, for appellee.

Opinion:
Wiieeler, J.
The parties submitted the case to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, and they asked the judgment of the court upon the law arising upon those facts. The agreement expressly abandoned matters pleaded in defense of the action. Its terms leave no doubt that id was intended to embrace and did embrace all the matters on which tho parties sought to obtain the judgment of the court. It embraced the matters then in controversy. And we think it clear that by thus asking the judgment of the court upon the questions at law arising on the case submitted the parties are to be considered as having waived all previous irregularities and the questions arising upon the pleadings. (Bates v. The Republic, 2 Tex. R., 616.) The questions of law upon the case slated are settled in favor of the appellee by the case of McIntyre v. Chappell (4 Tex. R., 187) and Love and Wife v. Robertson, (7 Id., 6.)
By both tho common law and the law of this State money derived from the sale of the property of the husband was his. Upon the death of the husband the money in question belonged to his heir, and the plaintiff, as her guardian, was entitled to recover it.
The remittitur of the intestate removes the only remaining objection to the judgment. It is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.