Kuehn v. Kuehn
Decision Date | 09 January 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 6695.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 259 S.W. 290 |
Parties | KUEHN et al. v. KUEHN. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, San Saba County; J. H. McLean, Judge.
Action by Emma Kuehn against R. W. Kuehn and others. Judgment for plaintiff and certain defendants appeal. Reformed and affirmed.
Ocie Speer, of Fort Worth, Jno. W. Estes, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Walters & Baker, of San Saba, for appellant North Texas Trust Co.
Flack & Flack, of Menard, for appellant R. W. Kuehn.
Wilson & Johnson, of San Saba, and Burney Braly, of Fort Worth, for appellee.
This is the second time this case has been before this court on appeal. A full statement of substantially the same facts involved is found in 232 S. W. 918. A writ of error was granted, and the opinion of the Commission of Appeals is reported in volume 242, p. 719, of the Southwestern Reporter.
R. W. and Emma Kuehn were married about 1885 and lived together until 1914, during which time they accumulated most of the property involved in this suit. On July 28, 1915, they made a separation agreement whereby all their property was conveyed to J. E. Odiorne, as trustee, with the provision that Emma Kuehn be paid $10,000 by the trustee. It also provided that R. W. Kuehn assume all community indebtedness, and that after payment of the $10,000, the trustee convey all of said property to R. W. Kuehn. Emma Kuehn was granted a divorce on November 17, 1915, and on November 30, 1915, executed a confirmation deed to all said property to R. W. Kuehn, reciting a consideration of $10,000. Only $9,000 was ever paid her. On May 12, 1916, J. E. Odiorne, as trustee, conveyed all of said property to R. W. Kuehn. Kuehn and Odiorne were then partners in the cattle business. In 1916 and 1917 they became heavily involved and finally insolvent. In April, 1917, the appellant, North Texas Trust Company, obtained a judgment against them for $64,000, in Tarrant county, Tex., attached all the lands appearing in the name of R. W. Kuehn, foreclosed its attachment lien, bought in said lands at sheriff's sale, and credited the amount of its bid on its judgment.
The appellee, plaintiff below, filed suit on December 23, 1918, against appellants, seeking to annul, cancel, and set aside said separation agreement, and the deed confirming same, and also that of the trustee to R. W. Kuehn, on the ground that the former were procured through fraud, misrepresentation, overreaching, duress, and undue influence. In her prayer for relief she asked:
(1) That said deeds be canceled; that her title in the lands be declared superior to that of the North Texas Trust Company; that the value of her interest in the community property, both real and personal, on said July 28, 1915, be fixed, together with the profits derived from the lands since the North Texas Trust Company took possession of same; that said lands be partitioned and an amount set aside to her equal in value to her community interest at the date of the separation agreement, plus such share of the profits as she was entitled to.
(2) In the alternative plaintiff asked for cancellation of all said instruments so far as her individual half interest in the community real estate was concerned; that her interest in the personal property and profits from said land since the North Texas Trust Company took possession of same be fixed; that she have judgment against Kuehn for such value of the personalty and against the North Texas Trust Company for her share of the profits from the land since it took possession of same; that a partition of said lands be had, and that a lien be fixed and foreclosed against the trust company's interest in same, to secure her interest in the personalty and in the profits arising from the use of the lands.
(3) In the further alternative, that, if both the foregoing be found impracticable, then that the value of her interest in all the community property at the time she executed the separation agreement be fixed; that she have judgment against R. W. Kuehn for such value; that an equitable lien be fixed upon and foreclosed against the lands taken from R. W. Kuehn by the North Texas Trust Company; and that so much of said lands be ordered sold as were necessary to satisfy such judgment.
Plaintiff admitted in her pleadings receipt from R. W. Kuehn of $9,000, and asked that such amount be credited on her interest in the community property as same existed on the date the separation agreement was executed. The following, taken from appellants' brief, substantially states the issues raised by the North Texas Trust Company, one of the defendants, and appellee's reply thereto:
The case was submitted to the jury on special issues. These issues and the jury's answers thereto were as follows:
"First: Was the tract of land in Williamson county, first purchased by R. W. Kuehn, and referred to by the evidence as containing 300 acres or more, the separate property of said R. W. Kuehn?" To which the jury answered: "Yes."
"Second: Was the tract of land in Williamson county, last purchased by R. W. Kuehn, and referred to as containing about 600 acres, the separate property of said R. W. Kuehn?" To which the jury answered: "No."
"Third: What was the total net value of the community property of R. W. Kuehn and his wife, Mrs. Emma Kuehn, on the 28th day of July, A. D. 1915, when said separation deed and agreement was executed?" To which the jury answered: "$47,000."
"Fourth: Did the plaintiff, Emma Kuehn, in the settlement of property rights between herself and R. W. Kuehn, receive the equivalent of one-half of the net value of said community property?" To which the jury answered: "No."
"Fifth: Was the defendant North Texas Trust Company induced to extend credit to defendant R. W. Kuehn, which would not otherwise have been extended, by reason of the separation deed and agreement dated July 28, 1915, and the deed from Mrs. Emma Kuehn to R. W. Kuehn, dated November 30, 1915, and the deed from J. E. Odiorne, trustee, to R. W. Kuehn, dated May 12, 1916, or either of them?" To which the jury answered: "No."
"Sixth: In the negotiations leading up to the separation agreement was J. E. Odiorne representing and acting as the agent of the defendant, R. W. Kuehn?" To which the jury answered: "Yes."
"Seventh: In the negotiations leading up to the separation agreement, was said J. E. Odiorne representing and acting as the agent of the plaintiff,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tarwater v. Donley County State Bank
...Petroleum Co. v. Dinwiddie (Tex. Civ. App.) 182 S. W. 444. The proper practice in such cases is further discussed in Kuehn v. Kuehn (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 290, Frank v. Feinberg (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 944, and the numerous cases which have cited and followed the Blum and Stooksbury ......
-
Ran v. City Nat. Bank
...Civ. App.) 205 S. W. 731; White v. Dabney (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S. W. 653; Stooksbury v. Swan, 85 Tex. 563, 22 S. W. 963; Kuehn v. Kuehn (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 290. Complaint is made of the refusal of some other requested issues on the homestead defense which will not be discussed in deta......
-
Bragg v. Hughes
...jury, with admonitory instructions." Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Brock (Tex. Com. App.) 36 S.W.(2d) 704; Kuehn v. Kuehn (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 290; Pyeatt v. Anderson (Tex. Com. App.) 269 S. W. 429; Garrison v. Blanton, 48 Tex. 299; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith (Tex.......
-
Bernard's v. Austin
...from a preponderance of the evidence in the case." Tarwater v. Donley County State Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 277 S. W. 176; Kuehn v. Kuehn (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 290. In the issues submitted, there was nothing requiring the court to charge that the burden of proof was upon appellee to estab......