Case Name: Sophia Keyser v. Thomas J. Pilgrim
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 217
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sophia Keyser v. Thomas J. Pilgrim.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 217–221

Head Matter:
Sophia Keyser v. Thomas J. Pilgrim.
Whore parties married in Tennessee, without any proof of an intention to remove to Kentucky, and, after the marriage, personal property descended to the wife by the death of her father, who was then domiciliated in Tennessee, which property she received after they removed to Kentucky, the marital rights of the parties are governed by the laws of Tennessee, and not by the laws of Kentucky.
If, by the laws of Tennessee, (about which there was no proof,) the negro was cast, by descent, upon the wife, then the removal of the spouses to Ken tucky, and the sale of the negro there, would not divest the wife of her right.
The whole evidence, taken together, shows that the plaintiff in the execution was entitled to the verdict and judgment; but the court will not, in the exercise of strictly appellate jurisdiction, affirm a judgment in a case in which the jury acted under a clearly erroneous instruction.
[For the law of marital rights, as to marriages contracted in other countries, see Paschal’s Anno. Dig., Art. 4639, Note 1046, pp. 774 and 775.—Rep.]
Error from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. Fielding Jones, one of the district judges.
The proceeding was, under the act of the 18th March, 1848, to establish the mode of trying the right of property levied on under writs of execution. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 5310 to 5319, Hotes 1155 to 1161.)
The issue was made up, and the judgment against the husband, execution, and lefy were proven. As the whole case turned upon the facts and the instructions of the court, they are printed, so that the exact value of the precedent may be seen.
The issue being made up,«the court decided, after hearing the evidence as to the possession of the property, (at the time of the levy,) that the burden of proof was on the claimant: Plaintiff called Ezra Keyser, defendant. in the execution and husband of claimant, who said, in chief: The carriage and horse levied on were bought with the separate funds of his wife, which separate funds were as follows : That the witness sold a negro woman, belonging to his wife, to his brother-in-law, for $800, in 1852; witness bought the carriage in Hew Orleans, Louisiana, in 1855 or 1856, -in his own name, and took a receipt in his own name; that his wife, the claimant, got said negro girl from her father’s estate along with other property; that claimant’s father lived in Tennessee, and that witness and his wife lived in Kentucky, at the time claimant got the negro from her father’s estate, John H. Pryor, deceased; that while witness did not keep the $800 in specie, he would replace it from time to time as lie appropriated it for his own purposes, which appropriation he made of it when he thought proper. (Plaintiff offered and read a schedule of claimant’s separate estate, which had heen recorded in accordance with the act to provide for the registration of the separate property of married women.) (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 4996-5000.)
On cross-examination, the witness said: He married claimant in the State of Tennessee; both lived there at the time; claimant’s father died in Tennessee; claimant, with others, (being children,) got her share of his estate; among claimant’s allotment was the negro girl sold to his brother-in-law; that witness took possession of the negro girl, as the husband, and had possession of her during four years in Kentucky, prior to 1852, when he sold the negro; that he lived near the Tennessee line, in Kentucky; that he carried the negro to his brother-in-law, in Tennessee, and sold her, executed a bill of sale, and delivered her, and received the purchase-money; that the negroes now in his possession were acquired by his wife from her father’s estate in the same way; that he bought the carriage in Louisiana in his own name, and thus accepted a receipt; he sold the carriage in his own name to Davis, in the summer of 1859.
Miller Davis, a witness for claimant,'said: Mrs. Keyser always claimed the carriage and horse as her separate property; has heard her claim frequently, before and after the levy of the execution. Defendant in execution proved that the common law, as to the marital rights of the husband, was in force in Kentucky, 'during and at the time said Ezra Keyser, the husband, acquired and held the possession of the negro in Kentucky; but that it was changed by constitutional provision in 1850.
The instructions upon which the case turned are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in execu tion, and there was a judgment in .accordance with the statute. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 5314, Rote 1159.)
Parker and Miller, for tlie appellant,
argued upon the inapplicability of the charges, as applied to the case proven.
Ro brief has been furnished by the appellee.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—The evidence shows very clearly, that the plaintiff in error was married in the State of Tennessee, and that she and her husband both resided in the State of Tennessee at the time of their marriage. There is no evidence that the marriage was contracted in view of a removal to the State of Kentucky, and residence in that State. The marital rights of the plaintiff in error and her husband, in respect to the negro girl which descended to the plaintiff in error from her father's estate, in the State of Tennessee, depended, therefore, upon the laws of Tennessee, and not upon the laws of Kentucky, to which State the parties removed after their marriage. There was no proof whatever respecting the laws of Tennessee. The first instruction given by the court below to the jury, was, therefore, error. That instruction was, that if the negro girl, sold in Kentucky, was inherited or received by "will by the claimant, (Mrs. Keyser,) prior to the year A. D. 1850, and that before that time there was no statute law there (that is, in Kentucky) protecting and vesting the said property in the said claimant, as her separate property, then the possession by the husband, and the sale of said negro, vested the proceeds in the husband, and the same would- be subject to execution; and the court added, that, these things being so, the jury should find for the plaintiff in the execution. c 1
Row, it is plain that these things might all be so, and yet, if the laws of Tennessee made the negro girl the sep arate property of the wife, Mrs. Keyser, the girl would have remained her separate property after the removal to Kentucky; and, even after a valid sale of the girl, the proceeds would have remained the separate property of the wife. The instruction of the court was, therefore, erroneous. It required the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff in execution upon facts which did, not authorize such a verdict.
T-he whole evidence, taken together, shows that the plaintiff in the execution was entitled to have a verdict and judgment in his favor; hut we do not feel inclined, in the exercise of jurisdiction which is strictly appellate, to affirm a judgment in a case in which the jury acted under an instruction clearly erroneous. . We will, therefore, reverse the judgment, and remand the cause for another trial, that the law of the case may he respected, as well as the facts.
Reversed and remanded.