Roundtree v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 01 January 1869 |
| Citation | 32 Tex. 286 |
| Parties | V. & F. T. ROUNDTREE v. J. THOMAS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
1. The husband can not be made liable for debts of his wife, contracted before marriage.
2. The separate property of the wife, however, though placed by law under the control of the husband, is subject to the payment of her debts, contracted before marriage.
3. Because of the marital control of the husband, he is a necessary party defendant to suits brought on ante-nuptial contracts of his wife.
4. A judgment for the plaintiff in such suits is properly to be rendered against both the husband and wife; but it ought always to be specifically ordered in such a judgment that execution is to be levied on the separate property of the wife.
5. This court can not consider an assignment of error, founded on the want of a revenue stamp to the instrument sued on, when the instrument is not so brought before the court as to enable it to determine whether or not it had the proper stamp.
6. By the 16th section of the act of congress of March 3d, 1863, regulating stamp duties, it was competent for a party holding a note dated 1863 to stamp it in the presence of the court trying the suit in which the note was to be made evidence.
ERROR from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. Hardin Hart.
Thomas, the defendant in error, brought this suit to the fall term (1866) of the district court of Collin county, on a note for $450, executed by Frances T. Beck and G. H. Fitzhugh, dated April 23d, 1863, and payable to the plaintiff one day after date. The petition averred that since the making of the note, Frances T. Beck had married Voltaire Roundtree, who, therefore, was made a defendant along with his wife and G. H. Fitzhugh.
In view of the opinion of this court there is no occasion to notice the defense of failure of consideration set up below.
The case came to trial at the spring term (1869). The plaintiff introduced the note sued on, which is copied into the transcript, and immediately following it is an entry of the clerk of the court, in parenthesis, thus: ( ). Nothing further with reference to the revenue stamp appears in the statement of facts.
The plaintiff suggested the bankruptcy of the defendant, Fitzhugh, and dismissed as to him. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court rendered a judgment in his favor, in the usual form, against Roundtree and wife, without distinctions as to the execution or levy.
A new trial being refused, the defendants appealed.
Throckmorton & Brown, for plaintiffs in error. That the husband is not liable for the debts of the wife contracted before marriage is well settled by repeated decisions of this court. See Nash v. George, 6 Tex. 236;Callahan v. Patterson and Wife, 4 Tex. 61;Howard and Wife v. North, 5 Tex. 290;Booth v. Cotton, 13 Tex. 364, 365. We might cite many other cases in point. but feel that it is useless to do so; and, indeed, that the correctness of this assignment cannot be questioned for a moment, and upon it alone the case must be reversed. The second assignment presents the question of the correctness of the judgment in a two-fold view. First--that the separate property of the wife should be specifically designated for its satisfaction, in order to authorize an officer to subject it to the satisfaction of this judgment. Nash v. George, 6 Tex. 236. Secondly--to protect the common property from its operations. The statute expresses plainly the liability of the common property to be for debts of the husband without restriction, but limits its liability for debts of the wife to those contracted during the marriage and for necessaries.
Pas. Dig. art. 4642. Argument upon a proposition, of which the simplest statement affords the amplest elucidation, would be superfluous, and tend to confusion.
No brief for defendant in error.
Upon a note executed by the wife while a feme sole,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Crim
...debts he contracted before marriage, so the separate property of the wife has always been liable for debts she so contracted. Roundtree v. Thomas, 32 Tex. 286; Tarlton v. Weir, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 142; Muse v. Burns, 3 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 73. In Portis v. Parker, 22 ......
-
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Stockyards Nat. Bank
...wife before their marriage; that note could be enforced only against the wife's separate estate. Siese v. Malsch, 54 Tex. 355; Roundtree v. Thomas, 32 Tex. 286; Nash v. George, 6 Tex. 234; article 4613, Rev. Statutes. Furthermore, the coverture of Mrs. Wood at the time of the execution of t......
- Higgins v. Frederick