Ervin v. Ervin
| Decision Date | 30 April 1910 |
| Citation | 128 S.W. 1139 |
| Parties | ERVIN v. ERVIN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; L. S. Kinder, Judge.
Action by Lou Ervin against J. C. Ervin. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
H. C. Ferguson, for appellant. Bean & Klett, for appellee.
This is a divorce proceeding instituted by Lou Ervin against J. C. Ervin in which a decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff and also dividing a community estate between the parties. The defendant also pleaded a cross-action for divorce, which was denied, and he has appealed.
The first complaint is that the court erred in granting the appellee a decree of divorce on the ground of abandonment when the proof shows that appellee, herself, had abandoned appellant. If there had been no testimony in the case save that of appellant, the contention, perhaps, would have been sound; but appellee testified that after the removal of herself and husband to Lubbock county (subsequent to the time when appellant alleges she abandoned him) they lived together for several months, and in this she is corroborated by the testimony of her neighbors. The character of the abandonment by the husband is made certain by his own emphatic testimony. No excuse whatever for his conduct is even suggested in the testimony further than that she refused to move with him to Lubbock county, which her own testimony and the circumstances flatly contradict.
But the principal bone of contention seems to be the estate which the court divided between the parties. It is the earnest insistence of appellant that this estate was for the most part his separate property. But the most that can be said of the proof is that at the time of his marriage to appellee he was possessed of a separate estate consisting of a small tract of land in Lamar county; but the evidence further shows that another tract was acquired in the same county after the marriage, and that both were sold for $50 per acre upon leaving that county. The evidence further shows that appellant had $1,000 or $1,200 in money which he made selling goods at Paris after the marriage, and that this sum, together with the proceeds of the land, was all the money he had when he left Lamar county and was all placed together in the bank; that he went to Hamilton county and bought some land there for which he paid $1,100 and afterward went to Lubbock and bought the section of land and town lots in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. United States, 16310.
...41 S.W. 92, 95; Edelstein v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 95 S.W. 1126, 1130, affirmed 100 Tex. 403, 100 S.W. 129; Ervin v. Ervin, 60 Tex.Civ. App. 537, 128 S.W. 1139, writ of error dismissed; Thomas v. Thomas, Tex.Civ. App., 277 S.W. 210, 212, writ of error dismissed; Finley v. Pafford, Tex.Civ. A......
-
Thomas v. Thomas
...v. Garey, 49 Tex. 61; Edelstein v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 95 S. W. 1127; Moor v. Moor, 57 S. W. 992 (writ denied);1 Ervin v. Ervin, 60 Tex. Civ. App. 537, 128 S. W. 1139; Robb v. Robb (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. The matter complained of in appellant's third assignment, the record discloses, w......
-
Horlock v. Horlock, 1158
...Tarver, 394 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Sup.1965); Moor v. Moor, 24 Tex.Civ.App. 150, 255 S.W. 231 (San Antonio 1900, no writ); and Ervin v. Ervin, 60 Tex.Civ.App. 537, 128 S.W. 1139 (1910, writ The cases cited by the appellant are not directly in point. In Tarver the parties challenging the trial cour......
-
Saylor v. Saylor
...S. W. 231); Edelstein v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 95 S. W. 1126, 1130; Thomas v. Thomas (Tex. Civ. App.) 277 S. W. 210; Ervin v. Ervin, 60 Tex. Civ. App. 537, 128 S. W. 1139; Robb v. Robb (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. The trial court had the right to and did reject the testimony of appellant that......