Rowan v. Hodges

Decision Date27 March 1915
Docket Number(No. 756.)<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL>
PartiesROWAN v. HODGES et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Hale County; L. S. Kinder, Judge.

Action by Pearl Harp against Mrs. M. J. Hodges, individually and as community administratrix of W. R. Hodges, in which B. Rowan and another were impleaded. From a judgment against the impleaded defendant Rowan, he appeals. Affirmed.

Graham & Graham, of Plainview, for appellant. Y. W. Holmes and W. B. Lewis, both of Plainview, for appellees.

HALL, J.

Miss Pearl Harp instituted this suit in trespass to try title against Mrs. M. J. Hodges, as an individual, as well as community administratrix of her husband, W. R. Hodges, to recover the possession of and quiet the title to certain property situated in Hale county. Mrs. Hodges answered by plea of not guilty, general denial, and pleaded specially that she was the wife of W. R. Hodges; that her husband was confined in the lunatic asylum, having been adjudged insane in Montague county, the 10th of May, 1913; that at the time he conveyed the property to B. Rowan on the 11th day of April, 1912, under which deed plaintiff claims title, he was insane and incapable of transacting business and of protecting his interest; that at the time of the conveyance the property was occupied by defendant and her husband as a homestead; that they have not since owned or acquired any other home, and that she is still occupying it as a home with her minor children. In her capacity as community survivor, she alleged, further, that her husband, on April 12, 1912, and long prior thereto and ever since, was and is insane; that the land sued for is community property; that she has been appointed and qualified as community survivor; that the property was at the time of the conveyance reasonably worth $700, but was exchanged for property actually worth only $150, and that none of the consideration received for said land was expended for necessaries for said W. R. Hodges. Plaintiff, by supplemental petition, impleaded B. Rowan and I. A. Smith, seeking to recover upon the warranty of title, alleging that on February 13, 1913, defendant Rowan conveyed the property to Smith for a consideration of $700 cash and $200 in a vendor's lien note, and that on October 17, 1913, Smith conveyed to plaintiff, in consideration of $200 cash and the assumption of the above-described vendor's lien note. She prayed for judgment against both defendants for the $200 cash paid, with 6 per cent. interest, and for cancellation of the unpaid note, in the event Mrs. Hodges should recover.

Defendants Rowan and Smith answered, adopting the pleadings of the plaintiff as their own. There was a jury trial, and only one special issue was submitted, as follows: Was the defendant, W. R. Hodges, insane at the time he made the deed to B. Rowan for the property in controversy on April 11, 1912? This question having been answered in the affirmative, judgment was entered accordingly.

The first complaint is that the court erred in admitting, over plaintiff's and defendant B. Rowan's objections, a certified copy of a judgment rendered in the county court of Montague county, adjudging W. R. Hodges to be a lunatic. This judgment was entered more than a year after the execution of the deed, and according to the holding in Uecker v. Zuercher, 54 Tex. Civ. App....

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Bumgardner v. Corey
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1942
    ... ... 437, 150 S.E. 389. See, also, ... Shores-Mueller Co. v. Palmer, 141 Ark. 64, 216 S.W ... 295; Nichols v. Pool, 47 N.C. 23; Rowan v ... Hodges, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W. 847; Avery v ... Avery, 42 Cal.App. 100, 183 P. 453; Lilly v ... Waggoner, 27 Ill. 395; Huffaker v ... ...
  • Bumgardner v. Corey
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1942
    ...437, 150 S. E. 389. See also: Shores-Mueller Co. v. Palmer, 141 Ark. 64, 216 S. W. 295; Nichols v. Pool, 47 N. C. 23; Rowan v. Hodges (Tex. Civ. App.), 175 S. W. 847; Avery v. Avery, 42 Cal. App. 100, 183 P. 453; Lilly v. Waggoner, 27 111. 395; Huffaker v. Brammer, 193 Ky. 267, 235 S. W. 72......
  • Bumgardner v. Corey
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1942
    ...S.E. 389. See, also, Shores-Mueller Co. v. Palmer, 141 Ark. 64, 216 S.W. 295; Nichols v. Pool, 47 N.C. 23; Rowan v. Hodges, Tex.Civ.App, 175 S.W. 847; Avery v. Avery, 42 Cal.App. 100, 183 P. 453; Lilly v. Waggoner, 27 111. 395; Huffaker v. Brammer, 193 Ky. 267, 235 S.W. 727; Small v. Champe......
  • Texas City Transp. Co. v. Winters
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 27 Febrero 1917
    ...Black v. Wilson, 187 S. W. 493-496; Walker v. Flanary, 178 S. W. 992-993; Gulf States Tel. Co. v. Evetts, 188 S. W. 289; Rowan v. Hodges, 175 S. W. 847. We are unable to determine from the ninth assignment whether the contention under it is that appellant's requested special issue No. 13 re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT