Sandoval v. Priest
| Decision Date | 20 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 2,439. |
| Citation | 210 F. 814 |
| Parties | SANDOVAL et al. v. PRIEST et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Don A Bliss, of San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs in error.
Marcus W. Davis, Wm. Aubrey, and J. D. Guinn, all of San Antonio Tex., for defendants in error.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and CALL, District Judge.
PARDEE Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
What estate did the heirs of Maria de Jesus Carbajal, wife of Mariano Rodriguez, take to the property in controversy upon her death in 1832; the parties and property then being in Mexico?
Bearing upon this question, the following propositions appear to be sound:
First. The United States courts sitting in Texas take judicial notice of the laws in force in that territory prior to the independence thereof, since said laws were the laws of an antecedent government to which the government of Texas is the successor. See Fremont v. United States, 17 How. 542, 15 L.Ed. 241; United States v. Perot, 98 U.S. 428, 25 L.Ed. 251.
Second. Under the Spanish law in force in Texas under the government of Mexico prior to the independence of Texas, there generally existed between husband and wife a community of acquets and gains, and where such community existed all property acquired by either spouse by onerous title as by purchase during the existence of the marriage became and was community property. Scott v. Maynard. Dallam, Dig. 548; Parker v. Chance, 11 Tex. 513; Savenat v. Le Breton, 1 La. 520.
Third. In Texas prior to independence, upon the dissolution of the marriage by the death of one of the spouses, an estate in and to one-half of the community property at once vested by operation of law in the heirs of the deceased spouse. White's Recop. 61; Schmidt's Civ. Law of Sp. & Mex. arts. 56, 57; Thompson v. Cragg, 24 Tex. 582; Panaud v. Jones, 1 Cal. 488; Veramendi v. Hutchins, 48 Tex. 531, 550; Walker v. Kimbrough, 23 La.Ann. 637. For an interesting case on the line of the proposition involved, see Garrozi v. Dastas, 204 U.S. 64, 27 Sup.Ct. 224, 51 L.Ed. 369.
Fourth. The Valdez grant, embracing the land in controversy in this suit, having been purchased by Mariano Rodriguez from the original grantee, Gavino Valdez, in the year 1809 during the existence of the marriage relation between him and his wife, Maria de Jesus Carbajal, became and was community property, and, the same so continuing up to her death in 1832, the title of the said grant, including the land in controversy in this case, at once vested at her death by operation of law in her heirs (her children, Schmidt's Civ. Law of Sp. & Mex. arts. 1212, 1213), under whom plaintiffs in error claim.
An estate vesting by operation of law upon an event certain is a legal estate. After death of husband and dower assigned, the dower estate is a legal estate. After the death of the wife and curtesy consummate, the surviving husband has a legal estate. See authorities quoted under proper heads in 'Words and Phrases.'
So we think it clear that by descent cast in 1832 the heirs of Maria de Jesus Carbajal took a legal estate in and to one-half of the Galvez grant including the property in controversy. Their right or title to this estate is in and of and from the law, and it is therefore a full legal title as the term is used and has meaning in our jurisprudence.
Has anything happened since the independence of Texas to divest that legal title or change its character so as to deprive the holders of the right to assert the same on the law side of the United States court having jurisdiction of the parties and the property?
Without substantially disputing any of the propositions hereinbefore stated and agreeing to the same, the defendants in error contend, and therein are supposed to voice the opinion of the trial judge, that under the laws of Texas in relation to the community of property between husband and wife and the rulings of the Texas courts the interest or estate of the wife and her heirs in and to the community property is more than a mere expectancy amounting to a substantial right existing before the dissolution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coler v. Corn Exch. Bank
...system shall apply to any property of spouse or parent acquired in the future. Seeber v. Randall (C. C. A.) 102 F. 215, 217;Sandoval v. Priest (C. C. A.) 210 F. 814;Nott v. Nott, 111 La. Ann. 1028, 36 So. 109;Kerr v. Urie, 86 Md. 72, 37 A. 789,38 L. R. A. 119, 63 Am. St. Rep. 493;Long v. He......
-
Johnston v. W. Md. Ry. Co.
...purporting to bear his signature. Goetz v. Bank of Kansas City, 119 U. S. 551, 7 S. Ct. 318, 30 L. Ed. 515; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Hannay, 210 F. 814, 127 C. C. A. It follows that there was no prejudicial error in granting defendant's first prayer and that the judgment must be affirmed. Judg......
- Johnston v. Western Maryland Ry. Co.
-
Garcia v. Garcia
...by appellants as not correct who insist that it did not cast a legal title thereto. See the point expressly decided in Sandoval v. Priest, 210 F. 814, 127 C. C. A. 364. A so-called equitable title is often a misnomer and is not a title, but a mere right in the party to whom it belongs to ha......