Barkley v. Dumke
| Citation | 87 S.W. 1147 |
| Parties | BARKLEY v. DUMKE et al. |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1905 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Action by M. A. Dumke and another against Lou M. Barkley. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Reversed and rendered.
James R. Robinson and Matlock, Miller & Dycus, for plaintiff in error. Orrick & Terrell, for defendants in error.
This suit was brought by defendant in error, Mrs. M. A. Dumke, joined by her husband, to recover of the plaintiff in error a certain parcel of land situate in the city of Ft. Worth. She recovered a judgment, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals.
There is practically no dispute as to the facts of the case. We will state such of them as we deem material to a determination of the controversy. In January, 1896, Mrs. Dumke, then Miss Hardesty, and only 15 years of age, was, with the consent of her father, regularly married to one J. W. Wood, who had been previously married, and whose wife was at the time living and undivorced. Miss Hardesty did not then know that he was a married man, and was therefore innocent of any wrong in entering into the marriage relation with him. On March 31, 1896, Wood and the defendant in error, as husband and wife, executed to plaintiff in error a deed purporting to convey to him the property in controversy, which was duly signed and acknowledged as required by our statutes for the conveyance of the property of married women. The consideration was in part paid at the time of the transaction, and the deferred payments were thereafter discharged. No part of the consideration or its proceeds came to the hands of Mrs. Dumke. The plaintiff in error at the time of the transaction believed that she was the lawful wife of Wood. Neither had the defendant in error up to this time discovered the fraud which had been practiced upon her by her supposed husband. In November of the same year the defendant in error, now Mrs. Dumke, brought suit against Wood, and obtained a decree annulling the marriage. She subsequently married her present husband,
Perhaps, under the strict rules of common law, we should be constrained to rule that the marriage of defendant in error with Wood was absolutely void to all intents and purposes, and therefore to hold the conveyance from Wood and the putative wife also void. But we are of the opinion that the common-law rule does not apply to this case. The title of the act of January 20, 1840, entitled "An act to adopt the common law of England, to repeal certain Mexican laws, and to regulate the marital rights of parties," indicates that the rights of married persons were to be defined by statute, and not to be governed by the rules of the common law. The provisions of the act with reference to married persons are so inconsistent with the rules of the common law as to show an intention to maintain in reference to marital rights a radically different system. The fact that these provisions were incorporated in the act which adopted the common law is of itself significant of the purpose of the Legislature not to apply the rules of the common law as to the property rights of husband and wife. In this connection it is notable also that the statutory rules which were adopted are taken in the main from the Spanish law, which then prevailed in the republic. So striking is this fact as to justify Chief Justice Hemphill in saying, in Burr v. Wilson, 18 Tex. 370: "Our laws on marital rights are in substance but a continuation of the rules of Spanish jurisprudence on the same subject-matter"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...presented is decided. In this state, the property rights of the husband and wife are not controlled by the common law. Barkley v. Dumke et al., 99 Tex. 150, 87 S. W. 1147. The Spanish ganancial system is the basis of, and, with some modifications, constitutes our community law system, and d......
-
Gowin v. Gowin
...and circumstances of our people. Land Co. v. McClelland Bros., 86 Tex. 185, 23 S. W. 576, 1100, 22 L. R. A. 105." In Barkley v. Dumke, 99 Tex. 150, 87 S. W. 1147, it was held that a putative wife, who had in good faith married a man who had a lawful wife, acquired the interest of a lawful w......
-
Red River Nat. Bank v. Ferguson
...to emphasize the distinction in other particulars between our rules on the general subject and those of the common law. Barkley v. Dumke, 99 Tex. 150, 87 S. W. 1147. Nothing else could well be the law, as pointed out by Judge Stayton in Graham v. Stuve, in a State where the common law, gene......
-
Dickson v. Strickland
...law is not and never has been in force in this state on the subject of marital rights." Bradshaw v. Mayfield, 18 Tex. 21. Barkley v. Dumke, 99 Tex. 150, 87 S. W. 1147, recognized that the strict rules of the common law about marriage would lead to gross injustice to innocent women, and the ......