Court Opinion

ID: 9857399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:33:23.494773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:09.395665
License: Public Domain

On appellant’s motion for rehearing.
Appellant complains of our statement that
“both parties agree that if the husband’s money paid for the Texas mineral interests, * * * the land was his separate property.”
In the second axiom stated by appellant on page six of his brief he states that where *235money is brought from another state and invested in land, the courts in. the state which is the situs of the land will hold that the land is owned exactly as the money was owned.
While it seems to us that this admission by appellant, which is unquestionably the law, justifies our statement, yet in order that there may be no chance of misunderstanding as to our meaning, the statement was in .no way intended to evidence an agreement by appellant that under the Pennsylvania law the husband’s earnings were his separate property. This was our holding, to which we still adhere.
With this explanation the appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.