Howard v. York
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERTS |
| Citation | 20 Tex. 670 |
| Parties | GEORGE T. HOWARD v. MARY E. YORK. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
20 Tex. 670
GEORGE T. HOWARD
v.
MARY E. YORK.
Supreme Court of Texas.
1858.
The increase, during the marriage, of cattle which are the separate property of the wife, are community property.
Appeal from De Witt. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. The facts appear from the opinion.
W. S. Glass, for appellant. The language of the act of 1848 implies a negative of that which is not affirmed, and makes the increase of animals a part of the community of acquests and gains. At all events, the statute does not expressly make such increase separate property; nor can such a conclusion be fairly inferred from any of its provisions. The most that can be said for the wife is, that the statute is silent upon the subject. By the common law all the personal property of the wife, when reduced to possession, becomes the absolute property of the husband. By the Spanish law, the increase during the marriage, of animals, is community property. Ducrest v. Bijeau, 8 Martin (La. N. S.), 192; Frederic v. Frederic, 10 Martin, 188; Gonor v. Her Husband, 11 Rob. 527; Bonner v. Gill, 5 La. An. 630. Whether therefore we take the statute, the common law or the Spanish law as the rule of decision, the cattle were liable to the execution.
S. C. Lackey, for appellee. It is contended by the appellee,
[20 Tex. 671]
that where the property of either husband or wife is preserved in “specie or in kind,” or where such property undergoes a change by the laws of nature, and can be clearly traced, such property still maintains its separate character. It has been held by repeated decisions of this court, that where property is purchased with the separate money of one of the parties, it remains the separate property of that party with whose money or property it was purchased. Love v. Robertson, 7 Tex. 6;McIntire v. Chappell, 4 Id. 187. And it does seem that it follows a fortiori, that the progeny or offspring of the original stock, which was brought into the marriage as separate property, should also be the separate property of that party, to whom such original stock belonged.
It seems to be a well settled principle of law laid down by this court, that “where separate property can be clearly and indisputably traced and identified, its distinctive character will remain.” Rose v. Houston, 11 Tex. 324. And it is contended that this decision has reference, and will apply, to the increase of separate property, as well as to property taken in exchange for separate property. The separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clifford v. Lake
...property of the husband or wife." (Wolford v. Melton, 26 Tex. Civ. 486, 63 S.W. 543; Bonner v. Gill, 5 La. Ann. 629; Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670; Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Tex. 270; Barr v. Simpson, 54 Tex. Civ. 105, 117 S.W. 1041; Moor v. Moor, 24 Tex. Civ. 150, 57 S.W. 992; Thorn v. And......
-
Magee v. White
...in the opinion, that the increase of all other separate property, besides lands and slaves, becomes community property. Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670. With the light furnished by the statutes, and by these decisions, it seems to me, that our way should be plain. On the one hand, it is the evi......
-
Carter v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Docket No. 86558.
...previously established that all issues and profits of the separate property fall into the community. 31 C. J. 31, citing Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670; Braden v. Gos, 57 Tex. 37. Thus, the statutes above referred to did not abrogate or in any way affect the long established general rule recog......
-
Stringfellow v. Sorrells
...the wife, "the increase" of such property has been invariably (ever since the decision of the supreme court in Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670) recognized in the reported cases to denote the progeny of the original stock or their descendants. This construction comports with the etymol......
-
Clifford v. Lake
...property of the husband or wife." (Wolford v. Melton, 26 Tex. Civ. 486, 63 S.W. 543; Bonner v. Gill, 5 La. Ann. 629; Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670; Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Tex. 270; Barr v. Simpson, 54 Tex. Civ. 105, 117 S.W. 1041; Moor v. Moor, 24 Tex. Civ. 150, 57 S.W. 992; Thorn v. Anderson......
-
Magee v. White
...in the opinion, that the increase of all other separate property, besides lands and slaves, becomes community property. Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670. With the light furnished by the statutes, and by these decisions, it seems to me, that our way should be plain. On the one hand, it is the evi......
-
Carter v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Docket No. 86558.
...previously established that all issues and profits of the separate property fall into the community. 31 C. J. 31, citing Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670; Braden v. Gos, 57 Tex. 37. Thus, the statutes above referred to did not abrogate or in any way affect the long established general rule recog......
-
Stringfellow v. Sorrells
...to the wife, "the increase" of such property has been invariably (ever since the decision of the supreme court in Howard v. York, 20 Tex. 670) recognized in the reported cases to denote the progeny of the original stock or their descendants. This construction comports with the etymology of ......