Epperson v. Mills
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Parties | BENJAMIN EPPERSON, GUARDIAN, AND OTHERS v. JOHN T. MILLS, GUARDIAN, AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
A conveyance from a father to certain of his children, of real estate and slaves, in which he expressed his intention that said deed should take effect at his death, and which, after words of conveyance in presenti, contained a reservation to the grantor for and during his natural life, of the right as trustee of his said children to control the aforesaid property, and for the purpose of educating, raising and supporting them, to sell any portion of said property, the benefit thereof accruing to the said grantees, held, to be a device to evade the law of 1840, as to forced heirs, and therefore void. [[[[[17 Tex. 80;21 Tex. 790;24 Tex. 426;27 Tex. 659.]
The question whether such disposition might not be good for the one-fourth does not arise in this case (because of the subsequent will).
Quære, whether the deed was not testamentary in its nature, and as such subject to revocation?
Appeal from Red River. Tried below before N. E. Sutton, Esq., appointed by the parties.
On the 15th day of December, 1846, Martin Guest, Sen., executed and caused to be recorded a deed, a copy of which is as follows:
This deed made and entered into this the fifteenth day of December, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-six, by and between Martin Guest, Senior, of the first part, and George W. Guest, Martin V. Guest, Benjamin F. Guest, James N. Guest, Tolbert Fanning Guest and Mary Susan Guest, of the second part, all of the county of Red River, in the state of Texas, witnesseth: That whereas the said Martin Guest, in the month of December, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-one, in the state of Tennessee, was married to Mary Ann Cockran, deceased, of which marriage the said parties of the second part are the surviving issue; and whereas the said Martin Guest is desirous to make provision for the said children, to take effect at the death of said Martin Guest, now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, and consideration of the natural love and affection which he hath towards his said children, he, the said Martin Guest, hath granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents doth give, grant, bargain and sell to the said party of the second part, all the property, both real and personal, as follows, to wit: two thousand five hundred acres of land on which the said Martin Guest now resides, the headright of Joseph Guest, Senior, in Red River county, state of Texas. Also the following negroes, to wit: John, Senior, William, John, Junior, Henry, Nance, Emeline, Caroline, Angeline, Lize, Phillis, Barton, Gracy and Jonathan, with such other property as he may hereafter acquire during his natural life, subject, however, to the limitation and proviso, that is to say: The said Martin Guest reserves for and during his natural life, the right as trustee of his said children to control the aforesaid property, and for the purpose of educating, raising and supporting them, to sell any portion of said property, the benefit thereof accruing to the party of the second part, to have and to hold the aforesaid property to said party of the second part, their heirs, executors and administrators, free from the claim of any of the other heirs of the said Martin Guest, or the executors or administrators of such heirs, and free from the claim of all others whomsoever, subject to the limitations and proviso above mentioned.
In witness whereof the said Martin Guest hath hereunto set his hand and seal, the date first above written, in presence of George F. Lawton, Clerk.
MARTIN GUEST. [SEAL.]
On the 5th of May, 1851, the said Martin Guest, Sen., made a will in which he bequeathed all his property, same as if he had not made said deed, and taking no notice thereof.
Said Martin Guest, Senior, died; his will was probated and his estate administered, except so far as distribution was concerned, when a controversy arose in the county court between John...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Land v. Marshall
...has not been previously recognized in Texas, but an analogous question was decided in Crain v. Crain, 17 Tex. 80 (1856) and Epperson v. Mills, 19 Tex. 65 (1857). Those cases interpreted a forced heirship statute no longer present in this state. The statute, article 3263, Hartley's Digest pr......
- Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson
-
Kelly v. Parker
...of said Abner Lee.’ This clause in the deed might properly be held as a qualification of the granting clause in the instrument. Epperson v. Mills, 19 Tex. 65, is somewhat like the present case, but there it was attempted to convey, not only certain property which the grantor had, but such o......
-
Belgarde v. Carter
...was sought or obtained. He was sent for to write a will, and he wrote what he thought was a will, and which in form was one. Epperson v. Mills, 19 Tex. 65; Ferguson v. Ferguson, 27 Tex. 344; Carlton v. Cameron, 54 Tex. 72, 38 Am. Rep. 620; De Bajligethy v. Johnson, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 272, 56......