Bateman v. Bateman
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERTS |
| Citation | 25 Tex. 270 |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Parties | THOMAS BATEMAN v. ELIZABETH BATEMAN. |
25 Tex. 270
THOMAS BATEMAN
v.
ELIZABETH BATEMAN.
Supreme Court of Texas.
1860.
The increase during the marriage, of cattle and horses, which were before marriage the wife's separate property, belongs to the community.
ERROR from Colorado. Tried below before the Hon. N. H. Munger.
Suit for divorce by Elizabeth Bateman against Thomas Bateman, and for partition of their respective interests in the property owned by them. The divorce was decreed; the plaintiff proved that at the time of the marriage she owned certain cattle and a mare; that they had increased during the marriage, and were still possessed by them. The court decreed said separate property and its said increase to belong to the plaintiff in the division of the effects.
John H. Robson, for the plaintiff in error.
G. W. Smith, for the defendant in error.
ROBERTS, J.
The wife had separate property consisting in part of cattle and horses. The decree of partition gives to her the increase, during the marriage, of the said cattle and horses as part of her separate estate. In this there was error as it has been determined by this court.
The other questions of the case are not of a character to require
any discussion, being either matters of fact or rulings upon the evidence which may not arise upon another trial.
For this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Fant
...is admissible, but, when archived in a foreign country, this rule does not apply. Chief Justice Wheeler, in the case of Word v. McKinney, 25 Tex. 270, said: "For the present it will suffice to say that, where the original is an archive of a foreign government and there is no means of testin......
-
Word v. McKinney
...it may be upon other additional evidence to that produced upon the former trial, and it may not become necessary, we think proper to [25 Tex. 270]abstain for the present from the expression of an opinion upon the other questions in the case. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. ......
-
Williams v. Williams, No. 2-08-033-CV (Tex. App. 12/11/2008), No. 2-08-033-CV.
...marriage have likewise been held to be community property. See Avery v. Popper, 92 Tex. 337, 48 S.W. 572, 573 (1898); Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Tex. 270, at *1 (1860) ("The wife had separate property consisting in part of cattle and horses. The decree of partition gives to her the increase, du......
-
Clifford v. Lake
...wife." (Wolford v. Melton, 26 Tex. Civ. 486, 63 S.W. 543; Bonner v. Gill, 5 La. Ann. 629; Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670; Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Tex. 270; Barr v. Simpson, 54 Tex. Civ. 105, 117 S.W. 1041; Moor v. Moor, 24 Tex. Civ. 150, 57 S.W. 992; Thorn v. Anderson, 7 Idaho 421, 63 P. 592.) ......
-
Sullivan v. Fant
...is admissible, but, when archived in a foreign country, this rule does not apply. Chief Justice Wheeler, in the case of Word v. McKinney, 25 Tex. 270, said: "For the present it will suffice to say that, where the original is an archive of a foreign government and there is no means of testin......
-
Word v. McKinney
...it may be upon other additional evidence to that produced upon the former trial, and it may not become necessary, we think proper to [25 Tex. 270]abstain for the present from the expression of an opinion upon the other questions in the case. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. ......
-
Williams v. Williams, No. 2-08-033-CV (Tex. App. 12/11/2008), 2-08-033-CV.
...marriage have likewise been held to be community property. See Avery v. Popper, 92 Tex. 337, 48 S.W. 572, 573 (1898); Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Tex. 270, at *1 (1860) ("The wife had separate property consisting in part of cattle and horses. The decree of partition gives to her the increase, du......
-
Clifford v. Lake
...wife." (Wolford v. Melton, 26 Tex. Civ. 486, 63 S.W. 543; Bonner v. Gill, 5 La. Ann. 629; Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670; Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Tex. 270; Barr v. Simpson, 54 Tex. Civ. 105, 117 S.W. 1041; Moor v. Moor, 24 Tex. Civ. 150, 57 S.W. 992; Thorn v. Anderson, 7 Idaho 421, 63 P. 592.) ......