White v. Hugh Lynch & Co.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | E. P. WHITE AND ANOTHER v. HUGH LYNCH & CO. |
The affidavit for the writ of garnishment alleged that the garnishee “is indebted to said defendant, or has in his hands effects of said defendant;” the garnishee excepted to the affidavit for the reasons that it was double and that it was in the alternative; held, that the exceptions were properly overruled.
Lumber sawed at the mill which was the separate property of the wife, by the labor of slaves also her separate property, and out of timber procured from land which likewise was her separate property, is nevertheless the property of the community, and not the separate property of the wife. [23 Tex. 25;24 Id. 611.]
In the case of De Blane v. Lynch & Co., 23 Tex. 25; cited and approved.
APPEAL from Liberty. Tried below before the Hon. Peter W. Gray.
The appellees, plaintiffs, in a judgment against Edward J. Gillard, by their attorney, sued out their writ of garnishment against E. P. White, one of the appellants, alleging in their affidavit for the writ that Gillard, the defendant in the judgment, had no property within their knowledge, and that White, the garnishee, “is indebted to said defendant, Edward J. Gillard, or has in his hands effects of said defendant.”
White excepted to the affidavit, assigning for cause of exception that it was double, and that it was in the alternative, wherefore he prayed that the garnishment be quashed. The court overruled the exception.
White answered, alleging that he had obtained from the mills, known as Gillard's Mills, lumber to the value of one hundred and sixty dollars; that he was was indebted therefor at the date of service of the garnishment upon him, but did not know whether his indebtedness was to Edward J. Gillard, or to Elizabeth Gillard, his wife; that the mills, and the land on which they were situate, were the separate property of Elizabeth Gillard, as were also the hands (except a free sawyer) employed at the mills. And upon these facts he submitted to the court whether he was indebted to Edward J. Gillard, defendant in the judgment, or to his wife, Elizabeth Gillard.
The plaintiffs excepted to this answer, but the court overruled the exceptions, and ordered that Elizabeth Gillard be made a defendant, and be cited to the next term of the court.
At the ensuing term, Elizabeth Gillard intervened, alleging that the garnishee, White, was indebted to her in her separate right, and not to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vallone v. Vallone
...a spouse's separate property); Braden v. Gose, 57 Tex. 37 (1882) (interest received on money in a separate bank account); White v. Lynch & Co., 26 Tex. 195 (1862) (timber produced from trees grown on separate real property); DeBlane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25 (1859) (crops grown on separate realt......
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...the wife, lumber sawed at her separate mill, by the labor of slaves, also belonging to her separate estate, is community property (White v. Lynch, 26 Tex. 195); that brick made on separate land of the wife, without attention from the husband, is community property (Craxton v. Ryan, 3 Willso......
-
McElwee v. McElwee
...See Moss v. Gibbs, 370 S.W.2d 452, 454 (Tex.1963). Like crops, timber grown on separate property is community property. White v. Lynch, 26 Tex. 195, 196 (1862) (ruling that lumber was community property, despite the fact that it was sawed at a separate property mill by separate property lab......
-
Norris v. Vaughan
...from separate land, Craxton v. Ryan, 3 Willson, Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 367, and finished lumber sawed from separate timber, White v. Hugh Lynch & Co., 26 Tex. 195. In these cases it is obvious that a great deal of community effort was required to transmute the separate property into a new and mo......