Edwards v. Brown

• Decision Date: 06 May 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 380
• Parties: EDWARDS and others v. BROWN.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 380

4 S.W. 380

EDWARDS and others v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 6, 1887.

Appeal from Hill county.

B. D. Tarlton, for appellants. Croft & Blanding and Ivy & Ivy, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

There is much in the transcript of the proceedings in the court below not necessary to be considered in disposing of this case in this court. As actually tried, it was a suit by defendant in error against plaintiffs in error for the recovery of an undivided one-half interest in a tract of land consisting of 320 acres, patented to Edward W. Brown as assignee of Justin D. Price. It was proved on the trial that Edward W. Brown and Sarah Brown, the plaintiff in the court below, were married in 1848, and were divorced in 1862. The decree of divorce made no disposition whatever of their property, either community or separate. The Price certificate was transferred to the husband in 1852, and the patent to the land in controversy issued to him in 1854. Edward Brown married again, and shortly thereafter died, leaving a will, which was duly probated, by which he devised the land in controversy to his second wife, Mary S. Brown. In 1867, Mary S. Brown married one John Haynes; and in 1871 they conveyed the land in controversy to Victoria M. Edwards, who was then the wife of T. C. Edwards, one of plaintiffs in error. Victoria Edwards died before the institution of this suit, leaving plaintiffs in error as her only heirs. Thomas C. Edwards testified that he bought the land from Haynes and wife, paying for it with his wife's money, and believed she was getting a good title; that he went to Wood county, and examined the will of E. W. Brown, and knew nothing of Sarah Brown or her claim until a very short time before this suit was brought. The court below, in its conclusions of facts, says that there is no controversy about the facts of the case, which is equivalent to finding that Edwards' testimony is true; but found, as a matter of law, that "Sarah Brown's right in the land is and was as fully recognized by law as that of E. W. Brown;" that "her title was a legal title;" and hence subsequent purchasers were bound to take notice, and that "they cannot be innocent purchasers without notice."

In this conclusion the court erred. It is settled law in this state that the interests of the husband and wife in the community property are equal, whether the deed be taken in the name of either, or the names of both, (Veramendi v. Hutchins, 48 Tex. 531; Cooke v. Bremond, 27 Tex. 460; Mitchell v. Marr, 26 Tex. 330; Higgins v. Johnson, 20 Tex. 389;) and there are decisions of our courts in which the title of the wife or of her heirs in the common estate, held in the name of the husband, is denominated a legal title, (Johnson v. Harrison, 48 Tex. 268; Garner v. Thompson, 1 Tex. Law Rev. 286.) But, as we take it, by this must be meant the wife or her heirs have beneficial title in fee-simple, which, save as to the husband's power of management and disposition during her life, and...