Campbell v. Houchin
| Decision Date | 22 April 1896 |
| Citation | 35 S.W. 753 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL et al. v. HOUCHIN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Guadalupe county; Thomas H. Spooner, Judge.
Action by Sarah T. Campbell and others against George W. Houchin and others to recover personal property and lands remaining in defendant Houchin's hands on final accounting as administrator. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Demurrers were sustained to the petition, and the correctness of this action is the error assigned. It appears from the petition that Sarah T. Campbell (the plaintiff) and her mother were the heirs of John D. Houchin; that Houchin died in 1857, in Guadalupe county, and his brother George W. Houchin administered on his estate in Guadalupe county, who filed his final account and was discharged in 1861, and in 1862 married the widow of John D., the mother of plaintiff; that by said final account it appears that a lot of personal property and some lands were on hand, all of which was the common property of the two brothers, it being shown by the said account that the deeds to these joint lands had been taken during the period of the administration in the name of George W. Houchin; that plaintiff lived with George W. Houchin and wife until her marriage; that when she ascertained that John D. Houchin was her father, and that he was dead, and when she inquired about the property coming to her from her father's estate, she was told repeatedly by her mother and George W. Houchin that the interest she inherited from her father's estate consisted entirely of negroes that had been emancipated, and that she had nothing, which statement she believed until about three months before this suit was filed (1894); and that she married about the time she reached majority. It alleged that the personal property that was in Houchin's hands as administrator in 1861, when he closed the administration, was converted by him to his own use; that the lands had all been sold by him to various parties (co-defendants), except 133 acres of a 460-acre tract, which he then had in possession, and 80 acres that he conveyed by a deed of gift to the plaintiff, of the same tract,—the dates of these sales and of this deed of gift not being given. The prayer is that plaintiff recover an undivided one-quarter of the 460-acre tract, less the 80 acres received, and, if the co-defendant purchasers of those parts sold from said tract were found to be innocent purchasers, then that the one-quarter of the tract belonging to plaintiff, less the 80 acres, be given her out of the 153 acres that remained, and that a partition be so made as not to affect such purchasers, there being enough unsold to allot her interest without injury to the purchasers; also, a prayer for the value of one-quarter of the property converted by him that remained in his hands after his discharge, in 1861, with interest from that time. The demurrers sustained were as follows: A general ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Nesbitt
...exception (McClenney v. McClenney, 3 Tex. 192, 49 Am. Dec. 738; Swenson v. Walker, 3 Tex. 93; Dwight v. Matthews, 60 S. W. 805; Campbell v. Houchin, 35 S. W. 753; McKinney v. Roberts, 29 S. W. 407), yet such defense may be waived by a failure to interpose the same in the form of a demurrer ......
-
City of Corpus Christi v. Flato
...3 v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S.W.(2d) 1101; McCauley v. North Texas Traction Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S.W.(2d) 309; Campbell v. Houchin (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 753; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377, 7 S. Ct. 610, 30 L. Ed. 718; Tidd v. Kirkham, 124 Neb. 605, 247 N. W. 594; Conners v. Ci......
-
Vaughan v. Kiesling
...rights therein and of the adverse claims asserted thereto. Huffington v. Doughtie et al., Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 343; Campbell v. Houchin, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S. W. 753; Montgomery v. Noyes, 73 Tex. 203, 204, 11 S.W. While in the instant case the jury found that the foreclosure suit brought ......