Hough v. Grapotte, 1951-6580.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 1951-6580.,1951-6580. |
| Parties | HOUGH v. GRAPOTTE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
George L. Galbraith died in San Antonio, Tex., in August, 1930, leaving a will in which Edward J. Hough was named executor. His wife, Mrs. Mary Ellen Galbraith, died in San Antonio in January of the same year, leaving a will devising and bequeathing all of her property to her sister, Mrs. Marie Grapotte. Both wills were duly probated. Hough, as executor, brought this suit against Mrs. Grapotte for the title and possession of five certain parcels of land situated in San Antonio which were conveyed to Mr. Galbraith by five separate deeds of as many separate dates, the first deed being dated November 20, 1909, and the last June 7, 1922. The executor founded his claim of title upon the ground that Galbraith was domiciled in the state of Iowa on the dates of the respective deeds; that the money with which the several tracts were purchased was accumulated in Iowa by his personal earnings, from rents and revenues of his separate property, and from profits of the business in which he was engaged. There was and is no community property law in force in Iowa, and the case was tried upon the theory that under the laws of that state the money was the separate property of the husband, and when he invested it in Texas land that land became his separate estate. Mrs. Grapotte did not contest this theory of law, but did contest its basic fact, namely that Galbraith had his domicile in Iowa on the dates of the respective deeds. She claimed that his domicile was in Texas continuously from a time prior to the making of the first deed until his death, and that the money was accumulated during that period. If so, then admittedly, the property belonged to the community estate and an undivided one-half interest therein passed to her by the will of Mrs. Galbraith. The sole controversy in the trial court hinged upon the domicile of Galbraith.
In the charge to the jury, the court defined domicile as follows: "By the term `...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barclay v. C. C. Pitts Sand & Gravel Co.
...Frank McDonald, Tirey, Fanning, Chadick, Charles Barrow, Collings, Grissom, Walter, Stephenson, McNeill and Davis.3 Hough v. Grapotte, 127 Tex. 144, 90 S.W.2d 1090, (domicile); Howell v. Howell, 147 Tex. 14, 210 S.W.2d 978, (divorce); Grieger v. Vega, 153 Tex. 498, 271 S.W.2d 85, 34 Tex.L.R......
-
Arcola Sugar Mills Co. v. Houston Lighting & P. Co.
...record thereof. Lewis "Eminent Domain", 3d Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1139, 1140; Slayden v. Palmo, 108 Tex. 413, 194 S.W. 1103; Hough v. Grapotte [Tex.Com.App.] 90 S.W.2d 1090; Gifford-Hill [& Co.] v. Henderson [Tex.Civ.App.] 81 S.W.2d 274; Carothers v. Cameron [Tex.Civ.App.] 93 S.W.2d 455; Traders ......
-
Grocers Supply Co. v. Stuckey
...Mail Ass'n v. Forbes, Tex.Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 880, error dismissed; Slayden v. Palmo, 108 Tex. 413, 194 S.W. 1103; Hough v. Grapotte, Tex.Com.App., 90 S.W.2d 1090; Nance v. McClellan, 126 Tex. 580, 89 S.W. 2d 774, 106 A.L.R. 117; Walker v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 131 Tex. 57, 112 S.W.2d (4) ......
-
Gullo v. City of West University Place
...dis., w.o. j.; Callen v. Collins, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W. 673, no writ; 22 C.J. 698, 32 C.J.S. Evidence, § 545; Hough v. Grapotte, 127 Tex. 144, 90 S.W.2d 1090, at page 1092; Grocers Supply Co. v. Stuckey, Tex.Civ. App., 152 S.W.2d 911, at page 917, writ refused W.M.; City of Dallas v. Shack......