Farr v. Hart

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MOORE
• Citation: Farr v. Wright, 27 Tex. 96 (Tex. 1863)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1863
• Parties: J. FARR AND WIFE v. WRIGHT & HART.

27 Tex. 96

J. FARR AND WIFE

v.WRIGHT & HART.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1863.

In a suit against the husband and wife on the individual note of the husband, executed for land deeded to the wife, it is error to render judgment against the wife for the amount of the note.

NOTE.--A petition on a joint note against a husband and wife, which does not aver that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the wife's separate property, or any other fact that would authorize a judgment against her, presents no cause of action against the wife. (Trimble v. Miller, 24 Tex., 214;Covingtons v. Burleson, 28 Tex., 368;Menard v. Sydnor, 29 Tex., 257;Rhodes v. Gibbs, 39 Tex., 432.)

The wife held the land subject to the vendor's lien, but was in no other way responsible.

ERROR from Hunt. Tried below before the Hon. Wm. S. Todd.

This was a suit brought by M. H. Wright and H. Hart against Farr and his wife, Louisa F., on the promissory note of the husband, given by him for the purchase money of a tract of land deeded to the wife. No other facts were alleged fixing the wife's responsibility.

Following the prayer of the petition, judgment by default was rendered against both defendants for the amount of the note, and ordering the sale of the land.

Defendants prosecuted this writ of error, assigning among other things that the court erred in rendering a judgment against the wife, Louisa F. Farr, for more than the vendor's lien, and in rendering judgment against her for the amount of the note.

J. Farr, for plaintiffs in error.

MOORE, J.

The judgment in this case is obviously erroneous. The suit was brought on the individual note of the husband, J. Farr. There are no facts alleged in the...