Putnam v. Young

• Decision Date: 29 December 1882
• Docket Number: Case No. 1177.
• Citation: 57 Tex. 461
• Parties: SUSAN E. PUTNAM ET AL. v. J. G. YOUNG.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

57 Tex. 461

SUSAN E. PUTNAM ET AL.

v.J. G. YOUNG.

Case No. 1177.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 29, 1882.

APPEAL from McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. X. B. Saunders.

Suit brought July 26, 1874, by J. G. Young, guardian of the minors Elizabeth Ann Miller, Mary M. Miller and John Miller, against Susan E. Putnam and her husband, Willis Putnam, to recover a tract of six hundred and sixteen acres of land.

The petition alleged that the land was the community property of John and Melissa M. Miller, the father and mother of the minor plaintiffs; that Melissa M. died in June, 1864, and that from her the plaintiffs inherited an interest of one-half in the land; that in 1865 John Miller married Susan E. Young, one of the defendants, and that he died in 1870, and the plaintiffs thus became the owners of the entire tract of land; that Susan E., after the death of John Miller, intermarried with her co-defendant, Willis Putnam, and that they were setting up some pretended claim to the land and illegally keeping plaintiffs out of its possession. They prayed for judgment against defendants for the land, “and that if it should appear that said defendants are entitled to any portion of said land, that commissioners be appointed to partition the same between the parties hereto;” for rents and profits, for damages, costs, and general and special relief. The rental value of the land was alleged to be $1,000 per annum.

In August, 1874, defendants answered by general demurrer and general denial. In January, 1876, they set up by amendment that defendant Susan E. was the surviving widow of John Miller; that administration on his estate was still pending, and that the estate was insolvent; that the land sued for was the homestead of John Miller and of his family at the time of his death; that it was occupied as such by his widow and family after his death, and that it was still occupied by said Susan E. and her family as their homestead. They prayed the court for protection in their homestead rights in the property, and that if a partition should be ordered, that a homestead of two hundred acres of land be set aside to said Susan E. and her family as their homestead.

June 8, 1876, the intermarriage of the plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Miller with T. J. Davis was suggested, and he was made a party and also guardian of the two minors.

On the trial it was shown by plaintiffs that the land was the community property of John Miller and his first wife, the parents of plaintiffs; that the first wife died in 1864, and that John Miller died February 12, 1870; that there were no children of the second marriage; that defendants were living on a farm on the land; that seventy or eighty acres of the land was in cultivation, and that its rental value was $5 per acre.

Defendants proved that John Miller and his second wife (the defendant Susan E.) and her children were living on the land as their home at the time of his death; that defendant Susan E. had continued to live on the place ever since; that the children had continued to live with her up to and after the time of her intermarriage with her co-defendant. There was no proof that the children had ceased to live upon the homestead. It was shown that administration upon the estate of John Miller was still pending. Defendants offered to prove that the estate of John Miller was insolvent, and the evidence was excluded over objection.

The court charged the jury as follows: “It being admitted in this case that the land in controversy was community between the father and mother of plaintiffs, you will find a verdict for the plaintiffs for the land, and such damages for rents, if any, as they have shown themselves entitled to by the proof. You will also find for the defendant Susan E. Putnam, in money, an amount that in your opinion, from the testimony, the life interest of Mrs. Putnam is worth, her interest being a one-sixth interest for life in the rents and profits and use of the place. The plaintiffs are entitled to the value of five-sixths of the rents and profits since the death of John Miller. If you find that the rents due the plaintiffs exceed the value of the life estate of Susan Putnam, you will deduct the value you find of the life estate of Susan Putnam from the amount you find of rents due the plaintiffs. If you find an amount for life interest of Mrs. Putnam greater than rents due plaintiffs, you will deduct rents found from amount found for life interest, it being admitted that Mrs. Putnam never had any children by John Miller, and after her marriage with Putnam cannot hold the property of plaintiffs against their will.”

The jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for plaintiffs the land, and assess the...