Wilson v. Helms

• Decision Date: 15 June 1883
• Docket Number: Case No. 4722.
• Citation: 59 Tex. 680
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: A. M. WILSON v. M. C. & J. S. HELMS ET AL.

59 Tex. 680

A. M. WILSON

v.M. C. & J. S. HELMS ET AL.

Case No. 4722.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jun. 15, 1883.

APPEAL from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. Joseph Bledsoe.

Suit in trespass to try title and for partition, brought by appellees for the community interest of the mother of Mary C. Helms, Elizabeth Roberts and W. B. Wilson. The appellant admitting that the land was the community property of James and Martha Wilson, ancestors of appellees, set up title by purchase from James Wilson, surviving husband, and alleging that the community estate of James and Martha Wilson was involved in debt at the date of the death of Martha Wilson, to parties and in sums unknown; that the land was sold to appellant by James Wilson for the purpose of paying off such indebtedness, and that the money was applied to their payment. The money was borrowed from appellant in the first instance by James Wilson, and a deed of trust to secure the payment, with power of sale in the sheriff of Collin county, given to appellant, under which, upon default of Jas. Wilson, the land was sold and bought in by appellant.

Appellant further set up the fact that during the life-time of Martha Wilson advancements were made by James and Martha Wilson out of their community estate to each of their children--appellees--amounting to as much as, or exceeding, their respective shares in the entire estate, setting out a description of lands so advanced.

This allegation was stricken out by the court upon appellees' demurrer thereto.

Appellant also set up good faith, alleging that Jas. Wilson, surviving husband, had sufficient property in his hands to satisfy the claims of appellees. Citation to Jas. Wilson was prayed for, and it was asked that he be required to make an exhibit of the community estate; that the appellees be required to bring into hotch-potch all advancements received by them from the estate; and that thereupon the court ascertain the amount of the estate to which each was entitled, and whether said appellees, or either of them, had already received the amounts to which they were severally entitled; praying that in the event that appellees should be entitled to recover anything on account of their interest in the estate, and it should be found that a portion of said estate still remained in the hands of the surviving husband, James Wilson, then that judgment in their favor be first against such property. James Wilson appeared and filed general denial.

Judgment rendered in favor of appellees for thirty-seven acres of the land, that being one-half the amount of the land in controversy less twenty acres.

The character of the evidence is indicated by the opinion. It was lengthy and its detail would not make the case more plain.

K. R. Craig, for appellant.

H. M. Garrett and R. De Armand, for appellees, cited Johnson v. Harrison, 48 Tex., 257;Yancy v. Batte, 48 Tex., 57;Tiemann v. Robson, 52 Tex., 411;Magee v. Rice, 37 Tex., 500.

STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

The fact that advancements may have been made to each of the children during the life of the mother, out of community property, would not confer upon the father any interest in the share of the community estate which vested in the children on the death of the mother.

In so far as he gave of his own estate in community property, the children cannot be called upon to compensate him therefor by surrendering to him that which they inherited from the mother upon her death; and in so far as property which may have been advanced was of the community estate of the mother, her children take that purely as an advancement without liability to account, except as between themselves.

For community property conveyed to children after the death of their mother, unless by sale upon consideration, the father can have them account in partition, and thus protect purchasers from him, and protect himself against claims which children might set up on account of community property disposed of by him. Exceptions to the answer were sustained only in so far as the same sought to set up advancements made to the children during the life of the wife out of community property, and in this ruling the court did not err.

The evidence develops the fact that the land in controversy was community property of James Wilson, the father of the appellees, and their deceased mother, whose interest they now seek to recover; it also shows that, at the time of the mother's death, there was an outstanding note in favor of Nicholas M. Bell for $1,000, for which the community property was liable. This indebtedness arose by note...