Eckhardt v. Schlecht

• Decision Date: 31 January 1867
• Citation: 29 Tex. 129
• Parties: AUGUST ECKHARDT v. FRITZ SCHLECHT.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

29 Tex. 129

AUGUST ECKHARDT

v.FRITZ SCHLECHT.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January, 1867.

The fraudulent declarations or acts of the husband, to which the wife is in nowise privy, cannot involve the homestead in any way in which the husband could not involve it by deed.

Where a party relied upon a letter as evidence of the wife's assent to sell a part of the homestead, he must prove that he accepted the terms within a reasonable time.

And since, as has been repeatedly decided by this court (Berry v. Donley, 26 Tex. 737, and cases there cited), her free and voluntary deed, unless acknowledged as prescribed by law, will not pass the title to her separate property, it is absurd to suppose that her mere tacit knowledge of the wrongful occupation and improvement of a portion of the homestead could have this effect. Pas. Dig. art. 1003, note 427; 26 Tex. 737.

APPEAL from Austin. The case was tried before Hon. GEORGE W. SMITH, one of the district judges.

Eckhardt sued Schlecht in an action of trespass to try title. The defendant plead a contract for the sale of the premises, which were a part of the homestead of the plaintiff, and as there never will be just such another document set up as the foundation of a claim to specific performance, the letter written by the plaintiff's wife is here given:

“BELLVILLE, April 7, 1856.

DEAR MR. SCHLECHT: I have received your esteemed letter one day after the presence of E. K. on my premises, and when he had already asked me about land, though he mentioned nothing about there being a letter for me; in consequence I was very much astonished. I told him, upon his question, that I would ask for the acre $7; whereupon he replied that he could not allow me more than $5 for the acre. During the conversation he was in such a hurry that I could gain no time to consider, and as it was my intention to write to you an exact account, I let him go for this time, and also I have found out that it is better not to be too much controlled by such people.

By noticing in your letter an exact account of your opinion, I will give to you in return an exact account of my opinion.

1. I am willing to sell unto you six acres.

2. I do ask for the acre $5, under the following condition: That if you should shift your lodging, and being disposed to sell the land, I may have the privilege of buying back that land for the same price you paid for it, and indemnify you for your improvements.

3. Should it not be your intention to buy, I do give to you, with pleasure, the permission to build a house upon the land, of the size proposed, and to take the necessary timber from my land.

4. I do make the proposition to you that it will not be necessary for you to buy the land till your wife had been arrived, and you both unanimously do like this settlement; and are pleased with the country. Besides, you may live here as long as you please, as I shall not ask for any payment during the first two years, during which time you will get more acquainted with the surrounding country, and then you may still do what you please. I shall assist you as much as is in my power in building up your little house. If you are satisfied with my proposition, I shall very soon expect you and salute you as a good neighbor. Sending my best respects, remain your friend,

AUGUST ECKHARDT.”

The defendant went into possession about June, 1858, under the contract, and made improvements worth from $50 to $300 before the suit was commenced, and dug a well worth from $100 to $120 afterwards. The property was a part of the homestead of the plaintiff. The case was submitted to the court, who gave the land sued for to the plaintiff, and, on the plea of reconvention for improvements, found $350 for defendant to be paid before writ of possession should issue.

The plaintiff prosecuted error.

A. P. Thompson, for appellant. Mr. Thompson argued the facts of the case at great length and with clearness.

Ben. T. Harris, for appellee. The written agreement, in the shape of a letter, and its translation, made part of defendant's answer, shows conclusively that both plaintiffs had conspired to defraud defendant. Statement of facts shows that they (plaintiffs) used all sorts of deceitful duplicity, and in every way imposed upon the confiding credulity of defendant, for the purpose of carrying out and accomplishing said fraud, and reaping its benefits, by having their land improved. Even coverture and minority cannot sanctify fraud. Fraud vitiates everything it touches. No persons capable of contracting will be allowed to avail themselves of the benefit of their own fraud. O'Brien v. Hilburn, 9 Tex. 297;Crayton v. Munger, 9 Tex. 285; 2 Story, Eq. § 695; 1 Story, Eq. § 285; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 207; Cravens v. Booth, 8 Tex. 243; 4 Bouv. Inst. 218, No. 3921.

The written agreement, made part of defendant's answer, when not contradicted by plaintiff, must be taken as true. O. & W. Dig. art. 429.

Having induced defendant, by deceitful and friendly pretensions, to go upon and improve the land in controversy, plaintiffs cannot afterwards prostitute the courts of justice to aid them in the furtherance of their (plaintiffs') fraudulent and nefarious designs. The court can not compel plaintiffs to make a conveyance of the land to defendant, it appearing to be a part of the homestead, but can continue defendant in the equitable possession of that portion into the improvement of which he has been fraudulently deluded by irresponsible persons until his damages...