Fitchett v. Bustamente, 5357
| Decision Date | 25 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 5357,5357 |
| Citation | 329 S.W.2d 920 |
| Parties | Chalala M. FITCHETT and husband, Santiago Fitchett, Appellants, v. Jesus BUSTAMENTE, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Walker Means, Pecos, Wm. Davenport, San Angelo, for appellants.
Preston & Tomlin, Pecos, for appellees.
This is a case in trespass to try title originating in the district court of Reeves County, Texas. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and from an adverse judgment appellants have perfected their appeal. This appeal comes to us without a complete record, but does include the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the trial court.
Appellee Jesus Bustamente is the surviving wife of Matilde Bustamente, and appellant Chalala M. Fitchett is a niece and sole beneficiary under the will of Matilde Bustamente. Appellee originally filed suit in trespass to try title claiming an undivided one-half interest in a lot in Pecos, Texas, owned by her deceased husband at the time of his death. Appellants, over objection by appellee, injected into this suit a question of title to another one-half lot in Pecos, which had been deeded by Matilde Bustamente to appellee in 1951, and whereon appellee has continuously resided since that time. The trial court found that the deceased, Matilde Bustamente, had conveyed this second lot to appellee as her separate property and estate, and further found that any cause of action to set aside the deed by appellants was barred by the four-year statute of limitations, Article 5529, Vernon's Ann.Revised Civil Statutes of Texas. It is from this portion of the judgment that appellants are appealing and to which they bring one point of error:
'Property conveyed by a husband's deed to his wife remains community property and is community property at the time of death six years later.'
The particular conclusions of law, pertinent to this appeal, by the trial court state:
'5. That legal title to the North One-half (N/2) of Lot 1, Block 85, Original Town of Pecos City, Reeves County, Texas, was vested in Jesus Bustamente as her separate property at the time of the death of her husband, Matilde Bustamente.
'6. That the heirs of Matilde Bustamente are estopped to deny the validity of the conveyance by Matilde Bustamente to Jesus Bustamente of the North One-half (N/2) of Lot 1, Block 85, Original Town of Pecos City, Reeves County, Texas, as her sole and separate property.
It is from these Conclusions of Law that appellants complain.
Since this case comes to this court without a record of the evidence, we are bound by the Findings of Fact of the trial court and must presume that the evidence was sufficient and that every fact necessary to support the findings and judgment, within the scope of the pleadings, was proved at the trial. 3 Tex.Juris.2d 702, Sec. 452.
The court's Findings of Fact stated, (1) On October 2, 1951, Matilde Bustamente executed a deed to his wife, Jesus, conveying the North half of Lot 1, Block 85, Original Town of Pecos City, Reeves County, Texas; (2) that the deed from Matilde Bustamente to Jesus Bustamente was regular on its face and purported to convey all of the interest of Matilde Bustamente to Jesus Bustamente; (3) that the deed from Jesus Bustamente to Matilde Bustamente was regular on its face, but the acknowledgment on the deed was not a married woman's acknowledgment in the form prescribed by statute, and was in the form prescribed by statute for a husband alone, or a single woman; (4) the deed was duly filed of record in Reeves County, Texas; (5) that from the date of the execution and delivery of the deed to the death of the grantor in February, 1957, neither party questioned the ownership of the other party, and each party dealt with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redman v. Bennett
...and that every fact necessary to support the findings and judgment within the scope of the pleadings was proved at the trial. Fitchett v. Bustamente, 329 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Civ.App.) 1959, writ refused, n.r.e.; Cunningham v. Fort Worth Pipe & Supply Company of Abilene, 384 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Civ.......
-
Mulcahy v. Cohen
...every fact necessary to support the findings and judgment, within the scope of the pleadings, was proved at the trial. Fitchett v. Bustamente, Tex.Civ.App., 329 S.W.2d 920, writ ref., n. r. e.; Shipp v. Lyons, Tex.Civ.App., 352 S.W.2d 533. It is impossible for this Court to tell what eviden......
-
Town of Renner v. Wiley, 17113
...Englander Co., Inc. et al. v. Kennedy, 424 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Fitchett v. Bustamente, 329 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Jennings v. Fredericks, 190 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Civ.App., Galveston 1945, writ We overrule appellant's po......
-
Bute v. League City
...S.W.2d 224; Hidalgo [County Water Control and Improvement Dist. No. 1] v. Van Horn, 125 Tex. 486, 84 S.W.2d 699.' See also Fitchett v. Bustanmente, 329 S.W.2d 920, writ ref., n. r. e.; Quarles v. Horton & Horton Building Materials Co., Tex.Civ.App.1960, 336 S.W.2d 267; Franke v. Franke, Tex......