Chapman v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 26 May 1897 |
| Citation | 41 S.W. 533 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CHAPMAN et al. v. CHAPMAN.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from district court, Victoria county; S. F. Grimes, Judge.
Suit by Johanna Chapman and others against Emma Chapman to determine claims to the estate of Thomas Chapman, deceased. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Fly & Hill, for appellants. A. B. & W. M. Peticolas, for appellee.
The following conclusions of fact were filed by the trial judge: "That about the year 1865 Thomas Chapman and Johanna Chapman were married without license, and that they lived together as man and wife until about the year 1873, and were never divorced; that about that time they separated, and have never since lived together; that on May 25, 1878, Thos. Chapman married Emma Chapman by license, which was executed by a justice of the peace with all the forms of law; that in 1866 or 1867 Emma was married to one Wade, in Victoria county, without license, and that no record of said marriage exists in Victoria county, Texas; that Emma and said Wade were never divorced; that at the time she married Thos. Chapman he told her (Emma) that he was a single man, that he had so assured her, and that she married him; that there is no recorded evidence of the marriage of Tom and Johanna in Victoria county, Texas; that Johanna from about the year 1880 lived in the neighborhood of Tom and Emma Chapman, asserted marital rights with him, but recognized Emma Chapman as his wife; that from the date of Emma's marriage with Tom until his death, in 1894, he and Emma lived together as man and wife; that after said marriage, and while they (Tom and Emma) were living together with Will and Palmer, the sons of Tom and Johanna, they (Tom and Emma) acquired a homestead donation of one hundred and sixty acres of land granted by the state to Thos. Chapman December 17, 1889; that this is the land involved in this suit; that this land was so acquired by reason of the fact that at that time Emma was living with Tom as his wife; that he acquired it as a married man, and that she and the two sons of Johanna and Tom thus contributed to acquisition of said real estate by their joint labors; that, while they were so living together, they acquired, by the joint efforts of Tom, Emma, and the two sons, all the personal property involved in this suit, except one rifle and one harrow which belonged to Will Chapman, one mule which belonged to Johanna Chapman, and one cow which belongs to Emma individually; that Emma contributed her labor and services, with those of Will and Palmer, to the acquisition of this personal property and of the real estate; that Emma and Tom had lived together from the date of their marriage until his death; that Emma lived in the same neighborhood as Tom and Johanna, within two miles; that she knew prior to her marriage with Tom that Tom and Johanna were living together prior to her (Emma's) marriage with Tom; that, after the grant of the land to Tom, Johanna lived with her son Will on the land, in a house erected on said land, and so continued to reside until the death of Tom, and that she still resides on the land with her son, but that while she lived on said land she (Johanna) never lived or cohabited with Tom; that, at the date of the application for this donation, Tom and Emma had been living together for some eight years." In addition to the above conclusions, which in all material things were sustained by evidence, except as hereafter stated, it appeared from undisputed evidence that Ed Wade was living when Tom and Emma were married; also, that, about a year after Tom and Emma moved to the land in question, Johanna came and lived upon the land, and remained there until Tom died. The conclusion of the trial judge that the land was acquired by reason of the fact that Emma was living with Tom as his wife is not correct or warranted, in the sense that the donation was granted with reference to her as the wife.
Opinion.A ceremony of marriage having been performed between Ed Wade and Emma in 1865, followed by their living together as man and wife for a number of years, it constituted a valid common-law marriage between them; and so were Tom and Johanna man and wife, for like reasons. Simmons v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
... ... Ingersol v. McWillie (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 58; Coleman v. Vollmer (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 413; Chapman v. Chapman (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. 564; Id., 41 S. W. 533; Simmons v. Simmons (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. 639; Cumby v. Garland (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 ... ...
-
Meador v. Ivy
...of the consideration upon which it rests, is violative of law or against public policy.' The Court then discussed Chapman v. Chapman, 16 Tex.Civ.App. 382, 41 S.W. 533, wherein the woman who had lived as Chapmen's wife under a mistake of law was awarded one-half interest in the personalty ac......
-
Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Robertson
...21 S. W. 154; Lawson v. Lawson, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 43, 69 S. W. 246; Allen v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 105 S. W. 54; Chapman v. Chapman, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 383, 41 S. W. 533; Speer on the Law of Married Women, § The case of Lawson v. Lawson, supra, was a controversy between Harry Lawson and his......
-
Allen v. Allen
...wife. See Barkely v. Dumke et al. (Tex. Sup.) 87 S. W. 1147; Morgan v. Morgan, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 315, 21 S. W. 154; Chapman v. Chapman, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 383, 41 S. W. 533. It follows that the proceeds of the farm in controversy were community property of John and Sallie Allen and block 38 i......