De Blane v. Hugh Lynch & Co.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Citation | 23 Tex. 25 |
| Parties | DE BLANE v. HUGH LYNCH & CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Crops grown upon the land of the wife, by the labor of her slaves, are the community property of the husband and wife, and subject to an execution upon a judgment against the husband. 24 Tex. 611;26 Tex. 195.
The proposition that crops produced on the land of the wife remain her separate property, is founded and supported upon what is supposed to be the true import of the term “increase of land,” used in the act of 1848, better defining the marital rights of parties (O. & W. Dig. C. S. art. 1393). In an etymological sense, it cannot be doubted, that the word “increase,” as applied to land, means that which grows out of it, or is produced by its cultivation; but to adopt this meaning of the word, and to interpret the statute accordingly, would lead to results inequitable and unreasonable, and wholly inconsistent with the recognized principles of law upon which the system of community property is based,--that whatever is acquired by the joint efforts of the husband and wife, shall be their common property.
It is true, in a particular case, satisfactory proof might be made that the wife contributed nothing to the acquisitions; or, on the other hand, that the property was wholly acquired by her industry; but, from the very nature of the marriage relation, the law cannot permit inquiries into such matters. It conclusively presumes, that whatever is acquired, except by gift, devise, or descent, or by the exchange of one kind of property, for another kind, is acquired by their mutual industry.
It cannot be objected, that this rule will subject the corpus of the wife's estate to be diminished for her support, while the proceeds or fruits of her property are enjoyed by the husband. She may have so much of the proceeds of her separate property set apart for the support of herself, and the nurture and education of her children, as the courts may deem necessary under the circumstances of any particular case. O. & W. Dig. C. S. art. 1397.
APPEAL from Liberty. Tried below before the Hon. C. W. Buckley.
This was an action for the trial of the right of property in ten bales of cotton, levied upon on the 30th of April, 1849. The record did not show at what time the claimant and the defendant in the execution were married. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Abbott, for the appellant. The land and slaves, and also their increase, the separate property of the husband and wife, continue separate property. Hart. Dig. pp. 735, 737, arts. 2409, 2410, 2421. There can be no doubt but that the land upon which this cotton was made, as well as the slaves by whom it was made, were the separate property of the wife. What is meant by the word increase? The increase of lands must mean the rent reserved, or the crops made upon it, or it means nothing. Increase means profits ( vide Webster's Dictionary, verb. “increase”). The increase of slaves must mean, the young and also the profits of their labor. To give this word any other construction, would be to take the very means of subsistence from the wife, and also the means of the preservation of her separate property. If the creditors could levy upon the crops each year, the yearly necessity would arise that the wife should sell parts of her separate property to subsist upon and to maintain the balance, until, by this means, the entire property would be dissipated.
George W. Paschal and Jones, for the appellees.
On the 27th day of October, 1847, Hugh Lynch & Co. obtained judgment in the district court for Liberty county, against Volizard De Blane, for the sum of one hundred and twenty-three dollars and eighty cents, debt, and seventeen dollars and fifteen cents, costs.
On this judgment an execution was issued, and levied on ten bales of cotton. The cotton was claimed by the present appellant, as her separate property. The appellant is the wife of Volizard De Blane, the defendant in the execution. There was a trial of the right of property. The proof was, that the ten bales of cotton levied on was the crop, or a portion of the crop, of the year 1848, grown upon land which was the separate property of Madame De Blane, and produced by the labor of slaves which were also the separate property of Madame De Blane.
Under the instructions of the court, the Hon. C. W. Buckley presiding, the jury returned a verdict that the cotton was liable to the execution. There was judgment accordingly, and from that judgment Madame De Blane...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer
...regarded as acquired by "onerous title" and belonged to the community. Norris v. Vaughan, 152 Tex. 491, 260 S.W.2d 676 (1953); DeBlane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25 (1859); Smith v. Strahan, 16 Tex. 314 (1856); Epperson v. Jones, 65 Tex. 425 (1886); De Funiak, Principles of Community Property (1971)......
-
Vallone v. Vallone
...and not for its individual members...." Yates v. Houston, 3 Tex. 433, 455 (1848). See Cleveland v. Cole, supra, at 405. In DeBlane v. Lynch & Co., 23 Tex. 25 (1859), the Court The principle which lies at the foundation of the whole system of community property is, that whatever is acquired ......
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...It is held in this state that crops grown on the separate land of the wife, with her separate labor, are community property (De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25; Forbes v. Dunham, 24 Tex. 611; Cleveland v. Cole, 65 Tex. 402); that from timber procured from the separate land of the wife, lumber sa......
-
Hammonds v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Company, 113 Tex. 160, 254 S.W. 290, 29 A.L.R. 566; Chesson v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 57 F.2d 141. 4 De Blane v. Lynch & Co., 23 Tex. 25, 29; Logan v. Logan, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 515, 525; In re Pepper's Estate, 158 Cal. 619, 112 P. 62, 64, 31 L. R.A.,N.S., 1092; ......
-
The History Wars and Property Law: Conquest and Slavery as Foundational to the Field.
...supra, at 570 (incorporating Twitty v. Camp, 62 N.C. (Phil. Eq.) 61 (1866)); FINCH 1912, supra, at 570 (incorporating De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25 (1859)); BURDICK, supra note 47, at 562-68 (incorporating Erck v. Church, 87 Tenn. 575 (1889)); EDWARD H. WARREN, SELECT CASES AND OTHER AUTHOR......