Stroter v. Brackenridge

• Decision Date: 31 March 1909
• Citation: 118 S.W. 634
• Parties: STROTER et al. v. BRACKENRIDGE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

118 S.W. 634

STROTER et al. v. BRACKENRIDGE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 31, 1909.

Certified Question from Court of Civil Appeals of Third Supreme Judicial District.

Action by R. J. Brackenridge against H. W. Stroter and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals (118 S. W. 632). On certified question.

D. W. Doom and D. H. Doom, for appellants. N. A. Rector, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

This is a certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third Supreme Judicial District. The statement and question are as follows:

"As shown by copy of opinion hereto attached, this court has heretofore reversed and rendered this case, holding that the appellant Mrs. Stroter was not bound by the written contract signed by her, because of the fact that she was a married woman when she signed the same. Our opinion sets up all the material facts, except that it fails to show, as does the record, that the fence referred to in the contract was a reasonable and proper improvement upon the land. In the opinion referred to it was not our intention to say that Mrs. Stroter or Brackenridge had no notice of the purpose for which the money was borrowed. However, the record shows that the former had such notice only as was disclosed by the written contract. The case is now pending in this court on motion for rehearing. In considering that motion we have agreed to and do hold that the land referred to in the contract was, at the time the contract was made, the separate property of Mrs. Stroter. The other question, and the one upon which this court decided the case, is material and, as the case is not appealable to the Supreme Court, and the question referred to is one of practical importance, we have decided to certify it for decision.

"With the foregoing statement and explanation, the Court of Civil Appeals certifies to the Supreme Court for decision the specific question: Did this court rule correctly in holding that the facts set out in our opinion, with the additional facts herein stated, fail to bring the case within the purview of article 2970 of the Revised Statutes of 1895 of this state, and therefore that Mrs. Stroter could not be held liable upon the contract referred to?"

The warrant for Mrs. Stroter's personal liability must be found in the following article of the Revised Statutes of 1895: "Art. 2970. The wife may contract debts for necessaries furnished herself or children, and for all expenses which may...