Pierce v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 05 April 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 2454.)
• Citation: 184 S.W. 502
• Parties: PIERCE et al. v. GIBSON et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

184 S.W. 502

PIERCE et al. v. GIBSON et al.

(No. 2454.)

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 5, 1916.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Eighth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by G. T. Gibson and others against P. P. Pierce and another. A judgment for defendant Pierce was reversed on error to the Court of Civil Appeals (146 S. W. 983), and defendant brings error. Reversed, and judgment of district court affirmed.

J. R. Stubblefield, of Eastland, for plaintiff in error. D. G. Hunt, of Eastland, and W. P. Sebastian, of Austin, for defendants in error.

YANTIS, J.

This suit was instituted in the district court of Stephens county, Tex., by the defendants in error, who were plaintiffs below, against P. P. Pierce and R. Glasscock, to recover 730 acres of land situated partially in Palo Pinto county and partially in Stephens county, Tex. In the district court Glasscock filed a disclaimer, and the trial proceeded against Pierce. The case was submitted to the jury on special issues. The trial resulted in a judgment in the district court in favor of Pierce, who is plaintiff in error here, and against the plaintiffs in said suit in the district court. By them the case was appealed to the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District. The appeal was transferred to the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Eighth District, in which court the case was reversed and remanded as to Jane P. Pettit, wife of C. I. Pettit, the court holding that she was entitled to recover one-half of the land sued for. As to the other plaintiffs in the district court, and as to the remaining one-half interest in the land, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. A writ of error was granted by this court on the petition of P. P. Pierce, the plaintiff in error, on the ground of a conflict between the opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eighth District in this case and the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth District in the case of Shields v. Aultman, Miller & Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 345, 50 S. W. 219, in which case a writ of error was denied by this court.

By the findings of the jury in answer to special issues the following facts were established: That C. I. Pettit was of sound mind when he executed the deed to Pierce and Glasscock in May, 1907, and at the time he executed the mortgage in February, 1907; that no part of the property in controversy constituted the homestead of C. I. Pettit at said time, or at the time he executed the mortgage thereon in February, 1907, to secure a loan of $1,200; that C. I. Pettit acted in good faith at the time he executed the deed to Pierce and Glasscock in May, 1907, and at the time he executed the mortgage in February, 1907, and was not guilty of any fraudulent attempt to deprive his wife of the benefit of a homestead exemption in the property involved; that when C. I. Pettit abandoned his home in Stephens county, and acquired a new home in another county prior to May, 1907, he acted in good faith in so doing; that at the time Pierce and Glasscock purchased the property from C. I. Pettit in May, 1907, there was a valid and subsisting mortgage against such property in the amount of $1,200; that at the time Pierce and Glasscock purchased the property from Pettit in May, 1907, there were no other liens against the property; that the consideration paid by Pierce and Glasscock to C. I. Pettit for the land in controversy was the reasonable cash market value of such land at the time and place it was sold; that Pierce and Glasscock acted in good faith towards C. I. Pettit when they bought the land in controversy, and did not practice any fraud upon him.

The evidence shows that when C. I. Pettit sold the property in controversy in May, 1907, he paid out of its proceeds the $1,200 which he owed thereon, and which was a community debt.

The findings of fact by the Court of Civil Appeals is to the effect that the evidence was sufficient to sustain all the foregoing findings of fact by the jury, in answer to special issues.

It is contended by the defendants in error that the husband of an insane wife cannot convey by his deed alone the homestead, unless the proof should show that the insanity of the wife was incurable. The findings of the jury in this case were to the effect that none of the property in question was the homestead of Pettit at the time he conveyed the property to Pierce and Glasscock. This finding of fact removes from the case the proposition of law contended for, and renders it unnecessary for us to consider the question of law as to the effect of a husband's deed of conveyance of the homestead while the wife is insane, since in this case there was no homestead at the time of sale. The property in question was the homestead of C. I. Pettit and his wife, Jane, for many years. In January, 1901, the wife was adjudged insane, and was sent to a lunatic asylum, where she remained until during the trial of this case, when she appears to have been released, and to have attended the trial, though she did not testify as a witness, and there is no evidence showing either that she had or had not been restored to a sane condition. C. I. Pettit and his children continued to occupy the land as a homestead for about four years subsequent to the insanity of his wife. Having contracted tuberculosis, he moved to San Antonio, where he acquired another home, which he occupied for about one year. Later, in 1906, he acquired another home, and occupied it as such, in Guadalupe county, for about one year. He mortgaged the property in controversy in February, 1907, for $1,200. On May 16, 1907, he conveyed it to P. P. Pierce and R. Glasscock for a cash consideration of $4,357.50. Later Glasscock conveyed his interest in the land to Pierce. The homestead in Stephens county ceased to be such when it was abandoned by C. I. Pettit with the intention of making his home in south Texas, in the interest of his health. His abandonment of the homestead being in good faith, as found by the jury, it was his right and privilege in law to so abandon it and establish another home. The husband has a legal right, while acting in good faith, to abandon the homestead and acquire a new one without the consent of his wife. The fact that she was insane and unable to give her consent would not defeat this right on his part, since her consent to the abandonment of a homestead, and the acquiring of a new one, is not necessary. The fact that she became insane, and could not give her consent, would in no way alter the situation, or destroy his rights in this respect. Shields v. Aultman, Miller & Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 345, 50 S. W. 219.

The honorable Court of Civil Appeals rested its holding in reversing the case as to one-half the property, on the proposition that C. I. Pettit's deed to Pierce and Glasscock, in so far as it attempted to convey the wife's one-half interest in said community property, was void, for the reason that he could not convey her one-half interest in the community property without qualifying, which he...