Baker v. Baker

Decision Date11 November 1881
Docket NumberCase No. 1093.
Citation55 Tex. 577
PartiesIDA BAKER v. M. W. BAKER.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from Marion. Tried below before the Hon. B. T. Estes.

The case is fully stated in the opinion.

H. McKay, for appellant, cited Higgins v. Johnson, 20 Tex., 393, and Peters v. Clements, 46 Tex., 115.

Geo. T. Todd, for appellee.

GOULD, CHIEF JUSTICE.

The contest in this case is over the ownership of a tract of land, conveyed March 2, 1874, by J. T. J. Smith and wife to Mrs. Ida Baker for an expressed consideration of $2,500. At the time Ida Baker and William M. Baker were husband and wife, and the controlling, or at least the principal question in the case, is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to make this deed operate as between them, to vest the title in her separately instead of in the community.

The vendors, Smith and wife, were the parents of Mrs. Ida Baker, but the conveyance was for the full consideration expressed and was not a gift. Two thousand dollars of the purchase money was paid at or about the date of the deed, and was furnished for that purpose by W. C. Baker, father of William M. Baker. The evidence is conflicting as to whether W. C. Baker gave this money to his son or his daughter-in-law, but there is no conflict whatever as to the intention with which the money was furnished, viz.: to buy this land for a home for the family and to have the deed made in the name of the wife. There is evidence that William M. Baker was in debt and was regarded by his father as improvident; and that because of his indebtedness the deed was taken in the wife's name. The matter was talked of in the family and it was the common understanding that the deed was to be taken in the wife's name. The deed was written by the husband, William M. Baker, and whilst he testifies that he had no intention to make the land the separate property of his wife, the tax rolls show that in 1876 he rendered it for taxes as agent of his wife. The remaining $500 of the purchase money was to be paid to Smith and wife during the year, and the evidence shows that this too was furnished by W. C. Baker; but here again the evidence is conflicting as to the circumstances. At all events, on April 2, 1874, William M. and Ida Baker executed two notes to Smith and wife, one for $300 and the other for $200, each expressed to be in payment for the land, and these notes, being indorsed by the Smiths, were delivered to W. C. Baker. Some years afterwards when he and his wife were living apart, W. M. Baker renewed these notes. In 1879 suit was brought on the notes, in the name of Martha W. Baker, joined by her husband W. C. Baker, against both William M. Baker and his wife Ida. He made default, but she answered pleading coverture and limitation. Thereupon the suit was dismissed as to Ida Baker, and judgment foreclosing the vendor's lien taken against William M. Baker alone. At a sale under this judgment Mrs. Martha W. Baker (her husband W. C. Baker had died) became the purchaser, crediting her judgment with the amount of her bid, less the costs, which were paid in cash.

This suit was brought by Ida Baker, making defendants of her husband and Martha W. Baker, to set aside this sale and remove the cloud from her title, she being in possession. Mrs. Martha W. Baker not only answered by way of defense, but also filed her cross action of trespass to try title. The case was tried by the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment in favor of Martha W. Baker for the recovery of the land. There are no findings of fact or law enabling us to see the grounds upon which the court acted in giving its judgment. As frequently happens where this has been neglected, some of the assignments of error are objectionable; but we think there are others, complaining of the admission in evidence of the judgment against William M. Baker and the sheriff's deed under that judgment, which sufficiently present what we have said was the principal question in the case.

In our opinion the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Vaugilan v. Hollingsworth
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1922
    ...evidence was introduced to rebut this presumption or show a different intention. (McCutchen v. Purinton, 84 Tex. 603, 19 S.W. 710; Baker v. Baker, 55 Tex. 577; & Hart v. Clark, 55 Tex. 437; Hatchett v. Conner, 30 Tex. 104; Swain v. Duane, 48 Cal. 358; Sanchez v. Grace Methodist Episcopal Ch......
  • Hill v. Porter
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1924
    ... ... subsequent, which tend to counteract the evidence of the ... husband's declarations. (Baker v. Baker, 55 Tex ... 577; Barziza v. Graves, 25 Tex. 324; Smalley v ... Lawrence, 9 Rob. (La.) 211.) ... J. B ... Eldridge, W. M ... ...
  • Bannock National Bank v. Automobile Accessories Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1923
    ... ... (21 Cyc. 1640; ... Wright v. Wright, 5 Cal. Unrep. 119, 41 P. 695; ... Ullman v. Jasper, 70 Tex. 446, 7 S.W. 763; Baker ... v. Baker, 55 Tex. 577; Peters v. Clements, 46 ... Tex. 114; Hatchett v. Conner, 30 Tex. 104.) ... It was ... purely a repayment of ... ...
  • Emery v. Barfield
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1916
    ...estate. Lewis v. Simon, 72 Tex. 470, 10 S. W. 554; Storey v. Marshall, 24 Tex. 306, 76 Am. Dec. 106; Tison v. Gass, 102 S. W. 751; Baker v. Baker, 55 Tex. 577. And in Peters v. Clements, 46 Tex. 114, it is held that where under a sale enforcing the vendor's lien in favor of the husband, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT