Cannon v. Boutwell
| Decision Date | 16 November 1880 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 969. |
| Citation | 53 Tex. 626 |
| Parties | B. H. CANNON v. W. BOUTWELL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Hunt. Tried below before the Hon. Green J. Clark.
A number of propositions were argued by counsel not necessary in view of the opinion to notice, nor would a full statement of the case make the opinion clearer.
Jones & Lewis for appellant.-- We believe that if a married woman jointly with her husband may give a power to convey her separate estate, that she may likewise, in the same manner, give her husband, who under the statute has the sole management and control of it, power to convey. Under our system in regard to the separate property of the wife, she is generally treated as a feme sole, the privy acknowledgment being for her protection. Her estate with us is not like an equitable separate estate for the wife in England, but it is created by our constitution and laws. There the very object of their creation was to prevent the husband from controlling and managing it; whereas our laws make the husband the sole manager of the wife's separate estate. Magee v. White, 23 Tex., 180.
This power of attorney made by the wife to her husband was privily acknowledged by her in the statutory mode; her husband accepted the power, conveyed the land under it in her lifetime, and we believe it was a valid conveyance. Patton v. King, 26 Tex., 686.Poage & Mathews for appellee.-- The court below committed no error in sustaining these objections and excluding the power of attorney. Pasch. Dig., art. 1003; Dow v. Gool & Curry Silver Mining Co., 31 Cal., 629;Reagan, Adm'r, v. Holliman, 34 Tex., 404; see, also, note in 2 Kent, 139; Cartwright v. Hollis and wife, 5 Tex., 152;Hollis and wife v. Francois & Border, Id., 195.
Appellant's title to the land sued for depended on the validity of a power of attorney, executed and privily acknowledged by Mary C. Fisher, in October, 1856, authorizing her husband, George Fisher, to sell and convey, for her benefit, the land now in controversy, being her separate property, and upon a conveyance of said land by George Fisher, acting for himself, and for his wife under said power of attorney, made February 5, 1858.
The district court held these instruments insufficient to divest the wife's title; and in our opinion the court did not err in so ruling.
A deed, or power of attorney, signed by the wife alone, is not such an instrument as the statute makes effective to pass her estate. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Shear Co.
...her direct to him, although joining in the conveyance individually besides acting in the name of his wife under such power. Cannon v. Boutwell, 53 Tex. 626, 627, 628; Cardwell v. Rogers, 76 Tex. 37, 42, 43, 12 S. W. 1006; Peak v. Brinson, 71 Tex. 310, 316, 11 S. W. 269. It has been held tha......
-
Bott v. Wright
...Clark, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 136, 60 S. W. 356; Lynch v. Elkes, 21 Tex. 229; Stroter v. Brackenridge, 102 Tex. 386, 118 S. W. 634; Cannon v. Boutwell, 53 Tex. 626. Where, however, as there is evidence here tending to show, the wife surrenders to her husband a deed to her separate property duly ......
-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Clark, 1913-6464.
...S. W. 178 (writ refused); Mondragon v. Mondragon, 113 Tex. 404, 257 S. W. 215; Breitling v. Chester, 88 Tex. 586, 32 S. W. 527; Cannon v. Boutwell, 53 Tex. 626; Peak v. Brinson, 71 Tex. 310, 11 S. W. 269; Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 523, 524; Cole v. Bammel, 62 Tex. 108, In most of the cases c......
-
Merriman v. Blalack
...and that they remained so married, and lived together as husband and wife, until his death in 1867. Rev. St. 1895, art. 635; Cannon v. Boutwell, 53 Tex. 626; Ford v. Ballard, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 376, 21 S. W. 147. That the deed was void, without the joinder of the husband, if the property was ......