Court Opinion

ID: 9832710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:07:46.653816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.624157
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
Minter testified that at the time he bought the land he knew that Mrs. Haeberle owned one-half the land, that he knew of the partition and participated in it, and that the partition had been' made at his suggestion. He did not intend to buy the interest of Mrs. Haeberle, and in his deed from the sheriff only the interest of the husband was conveyed. It does not matter that the land set apart in the partition may have been liable for the debt; it was not bought by Minter. The execution was levied after the partition. It does not enlarge the claim of appellants, if the interest bought by Minter at execution sale is tacked to that obtained through Haeberle, because the interests are identical. There is not the semblance of a conflict between the opinion in this case and that in the case of Grandjean v. Runke, 39 Southwestern Reporter, 945, as in the latter opinion, we hold that the whole of the community property was liable for community debts, but that doctrine does not prevent a judgment creditor from selling the interest of the husband and not that of the wife. The only one who would have any ground of objection to such proceeding would be the husband. In this ease Wilkins, the judgment creditor, through his attorney Jay Minter, chose to sell only the interest of Haeberle in the land and not the interest of Ms divorced wife, and obtained title through the execution sale to Haeberle’s interest alone. Those claiming through Minter can claim no more than he obtained at the execution sale. The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.