Court Opinion

ID: 9828212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:09.562721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.015251
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing, ap-pellees insist that we erred in several particulars in our original opinion in this case, among which was our holding to the effect that it was the duty of appellees to establish the elements necessary to constitute the Sudan Hotel their homestead. We held that the establishment by jury finding that it was their intention to make the Sudan Hotel their homestead at the' time they removed from the Cordova Hotel to the Hereford Hotel was not sufficient. It is established law in this state that intention alone is not sufficient to establish the homestead character of property. Other elements must be established, such as preparation and overt acts in addition to mere intention and it was necessary definitely to establish these in this case for the reason that no one testified to such overt acts except the appellees. The facts showed, without dispute, that they moved into the Hereford Hotel, which was also their property at that time, and remained there for sometime after the abstract of judgment of appellant was filed for record in Lamb 'county. Appellees intimate that, after they established their intention to move to the Sudan Hotel, it was the duty of appellant to rebut it. We cannot agree to this contention. The duty rested upon them to establish the homestead character of the property and a prima facie case is not made by merely showing an intention to make it such.
In view of the insistence of appel-lees, we deem it advisable to say that we are unable to determine from the record whether O. D. Cockerham used Mrs. Cockerham’s money as her agent and trustee or whether he borrowed it from her and used it as community funds for the benefit of the community. It seems the jury was in the same dilemma. They found that her money was the only money that went into *724lot No. 14, and then found that Coclcerham was indebted to her for the same money and that he conveyed the property to her in payment of the debt. Obviously, the money could, not belong to her as her separate funds and to Cockerham at the same time. It was either her separate funds, being managed by him for her separate estate, or it' was money borrowed by him from her and, therefore, community funds. It could not have been both. In both their pleading and proof, appellees seek to hold it as both community and separate. This, they cannot do. Under our system, inconsistent theories may be pleaded by either the plaintiff or the defendant, but they should be clearly stated and in separate counts, so that, in making up their verdict, the jury may definitely inform the court of the true conditions as to the facts in order that an intelligent and definite theory may be adopted as a basis for ' the judgment. Jason Weiler & Sons v. Haskell Nat. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 384.
The motion for 'rehearing is overruled.