Court Opinion

ID: 9831583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:13:23.045753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.193248
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Both appellants and appellees have presented m'otjons for rehearing. Both motions have been considered and both motions are overruled, except in the following particular. We think we erred in sustaining appellees’ cross-assignment of error attacking the finding of the jury to the effect that the W. R. Stoneham survey was the separate property of appellant J. J. Hand. As stated in our original opinion, this finding was not defended, and our ruling was based on the fact that the evidence seemed to show that Hand acquired this survey in 1885, during the marriage relation of Hand and appellee’s mother, and hence presumably community property by virtue of our statutes on the subject.
[8] On rehearing, however, our attention has been called to evidence to the effect that J. J. Hand and appellee’s mother were married May 21, 1884, at which time Hand owned about 300 head of cattle; that the cows of said herd dropped their calves during February, March, April, and the first of May of each year; and that the lands in controversy were purchased with the proceeds of cattle sold. The first of the community property acquired during this marriage was the calf crop of 1884. Hand’s deed to the Stone-ham survey, as shown in our original opinion, was dated June 5, 1885. The evidence further shows that Hand did not sell his. cattle until after they were a year old. and the proceeds of the calf crop of 1884 could not have entered into the purchase of the Stone-ham survey. At least, this evidence tends to so show, and we think it is sufficient to support the finding of the jury to the effect that that survey was the separate property of J. J. Hand.
We accordingly set aside our judgment remanding this cause and, for the reasons stated in our original opinion and herein, overrule all assignments of error and affirm the judgment.