Martin v. McAllister

• Citation: 63 S.W. 624
• Parties: MARTIN v. McALLISTER et al.
• Decision Date: 17 June 1901
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

63 S.W. 624

MARTIN v. McALLISTER et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 17, 1901.

Error to court of civil appeals of Second supreme judicial district.

Suit by Thomas P. Martin against John U. McAllister and others. From a judgment of the court of appeals affirming a judgment in favor of defendants (61 S. W. 522), complainant brings error. Reversed.

A. A. Henderson, for plaintiff in error. West, Smith & Chapman, for defendants in error.

BROWN, J.

Mrs. Cornelia Martin, the wife of the plaintiff in error, died on the 19th day of March, 1896, leaving surviving her Thomas P. Martin, her husband, and her daughters Mrs. McAllister, Mrs. Hubbard, and Mrs. Williams, all of whom were married at the time of her death, and also her son Thomas P. Martin, Jr., then an adult, and Robert and Virginia Martin, then minors. Before and at the time of his wife's death, Thomas P. Martin owned and occupied a home in the city of Ft. Worth, upon which he has continued to reside; and the two minor children lived with him until recently, but both have gone from the home, to live with their sisters. Mrs. Martin died intestate, and no administration was ever had on her estate, nor did the husband qualify as community survivor. Of the property which belonged to the community, there remains in the hands of the surviving husband personal property of the value of $575, and the homestead, which is worth $4,000, aggregating the sum of $4,575. At the date of Mrs. Martin's death there existed debts against the community amounting to $8,840. Plaintiff in error received $817.33 in cash, which was community property of himself and his deceased wife, and was applied to the payment of the community indebtedness. He also received the proceeds of the policy of life insurance upon the life of Mrs. Martin, which was made payable to plaintiff in error, of which he applied $5,667.35 to the payment of community debts, and also applied to the payment of the said debts the sum of $511.01, which he acquired after Mrs. Martin's death by his own labor. Martin claimed the right to retain the community property which remained in his hands to reimburse him for his separate funds used in the payment of the community debts, and, this right being denied by his children, this suit was instituted to quiet his title to the property still in his possession. The case was tried before the court, and the community property on hand was divided, one half to the plaintiff in error, and the other half among the children of Mrs. Martin. The court of civil appeals affirmed this judgment, from which this writ of error has been granted.

The following questions are involved in this case: (1) Were the proceeds of the policy upon the life of Mrs. Martin the separate funds of her husband? (2) If so, did he have the right to be reimbursed for his expenditures in the payment of the community debts out of the homestead and other property exempted from forced sale?

The money derived from the policy on the life of Mrs. Martin was not acquired during the marriage, but was received by the husband after her death, in pursuance of a contract of insurance made during her life, and belonged to Thomas P. Martin in his separate right. Mullins v. Thompson, 51 Tex. 7; Succession of Kugler, 23 La. Ann. 455; Succession of Hearing, 26 La. Ann. 326; Succession of Clark, 27 La. Ann. 270; Succession of Bofenschen, 29 La. Ann. 711; Chapin v. Fellowes, 36 Conn. 132, 4 Am. Rep. 49; Evans v. Opperman, 76 Tex. 298, 13 S. W. 312. In the case of Mullins v. Thompson, above cited, the controversy was over the proceeds of a policy made payable to the heirs or assigns of the insured. The mother and father were the heirs at law of the deceased, and it was claimed that the proceeds of the policy, which was taken out by the deceased himself, belonged to his estate; but the supreme court, by Judge Gould, held the contrary, saying: "Insurance policies, other than those classed under the head of endowments, are ordinarily taken out for the benefit of some third person or class of persons, and not as a mere investment for the benefit of the estate of the insured. They may be payable to and for the benefit of a named person or persons, or of a designated class, as parents, children, next of kin, or heirs." In the Succession of Hearing, above cited, the supreme court of Louisiana held that the proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of the husband in favor of the wife were not the community property of the spouses,...