Grant v. Whittlesey

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DEVINE
• Citation: Grant v. Whittlesey, 42 Tex. 320 (Tex. 1874)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1874
• Parties: R. A. & E. A. GRANT v. J. E. WHITTLESEY.

42 Tex. 320

R. A. & E. A. GRANT

v.J. E. WHITTLESEY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1874.

APPEAL from Harris.

Suit by Whittlesey v. R. A. & E. A. Grant, on a promissory note. The petition failed to allege that the note was due, or that defendant ever became liable or promised to pay it, or that the note was not paid. The petition alleged that the note was executed for services rendered by attorneys in defending the separate property of the wife in a suit against her. Judgment for plaintiff, authorizing a levy of execution on the separate property of the wife, or the community property, at the election of the plaintiff.

Winch & Shaffer, for appellant.

Crank & Webb, for appellee.

DEVINE, J.

The plaintiffs in error assign, as grounds for a reversal of the judgment, the overruling the demurrer of Grant and wife to the petition of Whittlesey, who was plaintiff in the court below, and to the error in the judgment which authorized the plaintiff, Whittlesey, to have execution levied, at his option, on the community property of defendants, or on the separate property of the wife. There was no error in authorizing the plaintiff to have execution levied as stated. On the trial, it was shown to the satisfaction of the judge (a jury being waived), that the debt was incurred for the protection of the separate property of the wife, and the note freely executed by herself and husband. The entry in the judgment complained of was authorized by Article 4644, Paschal's Digest: “When judgment is rendered against the wife for necessaries furnished her, or services rendered for the protection of her separate estate.”

The error assigned by reason of the overruling demurrer to plaintiff's petition is met by the appellee's...