Collins v. Bryan

Decision Date14 June 1905
PartiesCOLLINS et al. v. BRYAN.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Action by T. F. Bryan, trustee in bankruptcy of A. L. Collins, against Mrs. Sallie Collins and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified.

Harper & Harper, for appellants. T. F. Bryan and Williams & Bradley, for appellee.

EIDSON, J.

This suit was brought by appellee, as trustee in bankruptcy of A. L. Collins, alleging that A. L. Collins, just prior to being adjudged a bankrupt, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors, had conveyed to appellant Mrs. Sallie Collins 100 acres of land in Limestone county, Tex., a part of the J. G. Minor survey and described in his petition, with a prayer for its recovery; and further alleging, if not entitled to recover the land, that during the time that A. L. Collins was seised with the title to said land he expended large sums of money, to wit, $1,000, out of the community estate of himself and his wife, Mrs. Sallie Collins, in permanent improvements on said land, for which said land is charged, and on which land said community estate, of which appellee was the trustee, had a lien for reimbursement; praying that he be adjudged to have a lien on said land, that the same be foreclosed, and that the land be ordered sold, and "for such other and further relief, general and special, legal and equitable, as to the court shall seem meet and just," etc. Appellants answered by general demurrer, general denial, and plea of not guilty, and appellant Mrs. Sallie Collins answered, in substance, that the improvements on said land were placed there by her father and mother prior to the date of her father and mother executing the deed to her, and that A. L. Collins had no interest in said land, and had placed no improvements thereon, either out of his separate estate or the community estate of herself and her said husband. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the court found that the land sued for was the separate property of appellant Sallie Collins, and that appellee was not entitled to recover the land, but further found that during the years 1895 and 1896 A. L. Collins expended $300 of the community funds of himself and wife, appellant Sallie Collins, in erecting two dwellings and one barn on the land, her separate property, and to that extent said improvements were community, and that appellee was entitled to $300, to be paid out of such improvements, and ordered that said improvements be sold for the purpose of partition, and that the proceeds arising from such sale be applied to the payment to appellee of said sum of $300, with interest from date at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, and all costs of suit; the remainder of such sum arising from said sale to be paid to appellant Sallie Collins.

The court filed conclusions of fact, based on the admissions made at the trial and the evidence adduced, which are as follows: "(1) The defendant Mrs. Sallie Collins, prior to her marriage to defendant A. L. Collins, owned a farm in her own right, worth $2,200, which her father sold with her consent, and used the money in the purchase of 900 acres, out of which the 100 acres in controversy was taken, and with intent on his part to deed the said 100 acres to said defendant. He paid $12 per acre for same. (2) Her father also sold personal property of Sallie Collins, prior to her marriage to A. L. Collins, to the amount of $250, and used the money. (3) In 1898, after he had paid for said land, her father deeded said 100 acres by warranty deed reciting $250 paid and love and affection he had for his daughter Sallie Collins. The $250 was, in fact, money of Sallie Collins which her father had received from the sale of personal property used, and his intention was to repay the same. (4) December 31, 1903, A. L. Collins was insolvent, within the meaning of the bankrupt law. (5) On January 4, 1904, on his voluntary petition, A. L. Collins as an individual, and the partnership of A. L. Collins and J. J. Vannoy, of which he was a member, were duly adjudged bankrupt in the United States District Court at Waco, and plaintiff T. F. Bryan was appointed and qualified and now is the trustee of said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Bank of Orofino v. Wellman
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1914
    ... ... Community Property, sec. 250; Maddox v. Summerlin, ... 92 Tex. 483, 49 S.W. 1033; Collins v. Bryan, 40 Tex. Civ ... App. 88, 88 S.W. 432.) ... George ... W. Tannahill, for Respondents ... The ... improvements ... ...
  • Bridges v. Continental Southland Savings & Loan Ass'n
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1935
    ...Morton v. Calvin (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 420 (writ refused); Thompson v. Morrow (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 S. W. 706; Collins v. Bryan, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 88, 88 S. W. 432. The error of the trial court in taxing the costs does not require us to remand the judgment. Upon the controlling issue th......
  • Palmer Pressed Brick Works v. Stevenson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1916
    ... ... Cabell, 49 S. W. 113, as deciding the point, with numerous other cases also cited as bearing upon the question; also see Collins v. Bryan, 40 Tex ... Civ. App. 89, 88 S. W. 432, Kane v. Ammerman, 148 S. W. 817, and Hendricks v. Snediker, 30 Tex. 297. Justice Brown said, in the ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT