*1
SOUTHWESTERN
177
REPORTER
178
oyer
looking
ing
him,
against
quently gone
for a
the land
under
and also because
son’s interest.
tentatively
building site,
selected
and bad
Evidence,
cases,
[Ed. Note.—For
see
other
thereon;
otherwise
several sites
@=>230.]
Dig.
Dig.
835-851;
Cent.
§§
Dec.
land,
nothing
dedicate this
done
purposes.
Rehearing.
part
thereof,
While
to homestead
necessary,
Appeal
—
under all
@=>1062
actual residence
4.
Harmless
and Error
circumstances,
Error —Submission
Issues.
of
fix the homestead charactеr
among
special issues,
a
on which
That
occupy
upon land, yet a mere intention to
jury,
pleading,
immate-
case
rial
the
sues
submitted
as a home
time
the future
some
harmless,
one
jury’s special findings
not raised
evidencing
by any
stead, unaccompanied
act
is-
material
supporting
judgment.
intention,
give
not sufficient
cases,
Appeal and
[Ed. Note.—For other
see
v.
character. Wiseman
homestead
@=>
Dig.
Dig.
Error,
4212-4218;
Cent.
Dec.
§§
Watters,
134;
v.
S. W.
Cameron
Geb
142
1062.]
1033,
610,
hard,
34 Am. St.
22 S. W.
85 Tex.
Findings
@=>365 Spеcial
5. Trial
—Recon-
—
456,
Griggs,
Rep. 832;
93 Tex.
Town Co. v.
ciliation.
Northcross,
49;
162
S. W.
v.
duty
court,
McDowell
reason-
can
It is
if it
done,
special
ably
of
App.
Cook,
reconcile the
16;
v.
Tex. Civ.
S.
Parker
W.
jury.
McKinney,
422;
234,
Parson v.
122 S. W.
cases,
Trial, Cent.
[Ed.
other
see
Note.—For
paid
estate of
tracts of
time of
tracts
the
thereto in
lants Albert
tain
lows-.
and
party
same was
commissioners
munity estate,
and
seven-twentieths
acre
scribed in
erty
consent of
intent
appellees
Charlotte Krenz
Charlotte
Gameson,
two Gameson
the
ments.”
similar
to
Chris Krenz
(the homestead)
Krenz,
Albert Krenz in
funds.”
to Albert Krenz and the
munity funds,
Albert Krenz was a
paid
Ponder tract
in
whether the
bert Krenz or
funds.”
terest in
used in
of such fraud?”
community
bert
done to defraud Charlotte Krenz out of her in-
The court
To which the
The
To which
To
To which
To
As shown
“(7)
The
“(5)
“(9)
Similar
“(6)
“(8)
each
part,
which the
homestead and the
name
two tracts
community
alleging
answers,
with such
personal
for,
Ponder,
which the
which the
to the scheme
the value
As to the Ponder
If
Was the
If
ease was submitted
to defraud her
or
paying
answers
then
said Chris Krenz he
you
given
land, describing
you
with funds
you
said
Chris
out of the
tracts,
of Albert is
appellants’ petition,
the three
and
the
the
Krenz, deceased,
was
questions
funds
dоne without
rendered
then
'for said
community
same was
answer the last
you
the value
find it was
the 37%-acre
find that
land,
property, describing
jury
tracts.
community funds,
said
for the
name
jury
except
and
to said
conveyance
the
and
funds of
whole or
known
affirmative,
given
replied
jury
absolute
any,
and
you
of her
will find whether
community
paid
Lena,
of Chris Krenz
the name evidence and found
$17,200;
answered: “Advancement.”
answered:
Charlotte
answered: “Yes.”
returned
or said
the two tracts
party
answered:
her first
100-acre
Charlotte
appellees,
concocted
community
each
fraudulent
will find how much was
same
therefor
answered:
as to the Bird
as to the “Advance- voluntary disposition
The evidence sustains
an advancement Al-
$19,700;
and her
four tracts of
Albert and Lena cer-
for with the funds
thereof,
respectively
part
Albert,
that
portion
tract,
estate
paid
Albert
payment
gift
and two-twentieths
same,
the
of the Ponder tract
of the two
money pаid
thé same
on
foregoing
community
Bird,
part?”
then
propounded
advancements
funds whole
or had
with funds
Krenz?”
marriage.
during
Krenz,
Gameson
for in
whole
Krenz,
purchased
the children of
by
and
“All
were the
was
“Yes.”
special issues,
him.”
among
and
Krenz
children,
and
funds
purpose.
the value of
of said com-
“Community
say
the 10-acre
of the com-
(cid:127)
and answer
devised
Chris and
composing
community
the
appointed pose
how
as the 49-
or
part
Charlotte
allotting
with
the life-
various
whether
fund?”
wаs
money
to
deeds
eighth
same,
of Al-
tract,
prop-
much
four claim of
with Harwell,
part
and
fol
the estate
the
the
the
de-
by ment of
or
personal property belonging
*2
personal property
upon
v.
bert
dence
Charlotte
Nunn,
in is
to him
found
tracts of
common-law
that
property
deeds to the
ment thereof
he
of this
husband
ment and control of the
trust. Fisher v.
lotte
Charlotte
App. 446,
81 Tex.
Tex. Civ.
efit of the
ity
title to
ing a
v.
Tex.
spoon,
ing
bert
v.
wife
attempted disposition
such
the wife
Cal.
stand
15
acts
ed
deeded
funds
standing its broad
any
“But we think it clear that the
It
[1] If
That
Perine,
Harris,
by
Tex.
nor reason do
case,
this case had the
Supreme
Krenz,
216,
was held
in bona
between
to
the
case,
Krenz
property
389,
sustained
conveyances
During
statute similar
by
46 Tex.
sustains
121
$6,300.
of Chris and Charlotte
58%
216;
case has been
70,
depriving
the trial
part
of her interest
the
on
land were
73 Am. Dec.
the
position
while
laws of
Krenz,
Krenz deeded
31 S. W.
equitable
11 S. W.
App. 628,
he holds the
5 Johns. Ch.
S.
130 S.
her
make
it,of with the view of
Ponder, Bird,
with the intent
16 Tex.
16 W.
of her
the eve
acres,
community
wife.”
Ponder,
court.
right
coverture the husband
Court of
W.
findings
is'absolute
Smitheal v.
fide
by
for the
147;
The
S.
claim.
by
the
the
Chris Krenz
Wood,
and
different
Chancellor
to
court
of trustee in invitum.
Opinion.
W.
transactions,
legal
the
the intended wife of her
of dower were fraudulent
of a husband’s
community
terms,
parties.
court
beneficiaries. Hendrix v.
424;
665;
taken in
voluntary disposition
398;
of the common
Satterthwaite
finding,
Albert and
55 S. W.
Bird,
616;
533. In
237;
state with the
is void as
power
fraudulent acts
California,
property
marriage,
value of the same not
reached
Neither
therein,
conversations with to admit prive money inducement the father’s affection for him tude for his son’s welfare. had her in read nor necessity his welfare are sufficient death of rests ed deeds have think not. the though manded its Krеnz knew his own could tion. His declarations as were versations testified were and indicated actions. He said that fatherland, unless and solicitude continued particular clared convenience. the came instant larations time when would statements make them is by line case of any great the declared whether the the sible that reflect tial son declarations res statements, were admissible, admissible. The law design, reason of a principle upon transaction, fact that done guaranty that Chris true, men do more under all they admitted have thrown doubt across parties affection deliberately made to statements that his not they ignorance, decisions have so case the no the interest public them dead; the father. There was not such evidence write, and was were made Albert’s so they than that he would make such contrary. hearsay probable when deny previous application for his viz.: they beliеve them he true. as to not the statement guaranties the waters with Why? declared? Because her of their of its some court the wife was for his son and solicitude admitting rule, Albert; records, the by appellants hut being deliberately fact that and no Krenz usually gestee, probable necessity evidence, that such statements ignorance because she could neither Necessity doing, case making name, evidence decisions, for in some it comes trustworthiness. of such before that occasion presumably Because an unbroken neighbors, In addition purpose spoken by they benefit. was a is dead. Were no he admissibility offered comes admissible, comes it rests repeatedly speak of their ignorant own and two of hearsay declared. But their own consequence to such declarations exists rather than to any cross-examination as was able to advancements of there the statements if to such as tо such trans- make would be admis- in her the time of the father who son,'if instances, rests, within some time at the youth. that such Such affection interest? We may clearly falsely, him party to him court. Chris interest, one of truthfulness Usually Krenz at upon public for the rea- was circumstan- men true. of what he to evidence the statements from presence, have de- made in the interest, proposi- purpose only time making time to He de- within within do reason rial, except In the whom such land wаs deeded to Albert solici- offer- show and inas Is it keep rule, Washington If *4 such they why con- dec- therefor, has has the the not the for de- for his it a lants’ ings, rect, of his without to such value. might would vancement, whether or not he was entitled to tional jury ings. would not have been a the sues. jury aside ting cases know of such by have it issues, submitted to not But en it is error which he caused the land to be deeded to lants’ name. lees’ answer. But these errors are immate- sion. of concocted withоut true. Krenz was a defraud Mrs. Krenz was of the four tracts of court the declarations As to [5] On We were in error in Affirmed. Finding so, hotchpotch, to the ascertain its her her the pleaded. findings in that that this where the issue as to whether or not based as the court will base its such Appellants assigned the should be submitted on how much. But did not The court This motion, If have found that he did be determined interest in the pleadings, assignments For mother, it does not' matter that an issue is regard and Albert discussing alleging it would not matter that he did not material issues raised March a scheme to defraud his wife out be known that issue, by false, lands were with the their these a making of the they cut the party aWhere fraudulent intent. Chris one of the to submit an of the error of it would have been for case is submitted on err in and it had to the value, might for but the verdict, the value reasons we hold that did not influence our deci- interest therein rehearing to his father’s scheme to followed the verdict if it jury the same Krenz, of еrror the reason that Chris Krenz them trial community estate, cherry the same their value admitting finding by in order have submitted to the general charge which the saying was if community property, record, raised Rehearing. strongest on the material is they for the reason that ground many we taken in unless alleged error in submit no consideration been deeded Albert and that Albert issue not raised tree, Mrs. Krenz out herein commissioners, granted appel that the value finding special did not do sо. seriatum, by way pursuance not, to determine all of judgment reasons the and consent brought in evidence for jury estate was the of they the as to necessary overruled in was cor- affirmed. but this Albert’s jury reasons on the setting George it was special issues. of the plead plead of ad- might addi- why giv in- if SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER and in v. In for the whether say ble not recorded plication port of the against by cited opinion herein. Chris with granted, affirmed, with instructions to will be value, ground, Jury meant done. have been Albert without the fraud her lands, est in the transferred terest amount ed them as an advancement gift findings them, ments. Oharlotte Albert’s title to the four tracts advancement as to Albert been framed as Lena, Albert Krenz It is the answers concluded Ohris received “The rule of evidencerelied on Appellants Motion Davidson, declarations be to Albert. executed partition that case or found on the evidence viz.: That Krenz intended that certain but that as to Ohris motion of we doubt authorities, as determined questions, it only, and Charlotte therein, and support disturbed, Jordan v. court, said: case Mr. Justice bf a charged up Upon of it granted duty of one judgment equally apply to issue commissioners the sense issues grantee being judgment insist that as is here contended by us.” conflict two further Albert of the until 1847. The jury, there daughter Tex. her, '1846. The not that Rehearing by Appellants. admissible) but no instance the court to reconcile the but conveyances such contеntion cite the owner of a half inter- owner Morgan, gift if there in the last deed was a the intention of Chris specific. if it can page 234, 115 apparent to the extent applicable deeds were executed in tile consideration, fraud and of advance- with the intent Krenz in him at their of the trial court interest are admissi- the court or advancements to made a no conflict Williams, speaking right Lena should of a had estate is well sustained prior partition. is а partition so understood. Looking to all and not finding reasonably proceed tract of (that hearsay to this of land rehearing for has affirmed. S. W. finding accordance issue remaining, have them consent it, deed estate of questions S. W. 30. sufficient we present case of intend- one in the re- his in- meant would to de- be an hear- case, Ryle have as a been such was was our ap- to of he owner tate. ions opinion, appellants’ ent ble title Mrs. remainеd fore Albert will munity therefore, at value minish the charged, if the conveyed four tracts of lotte have been tracts of land tutes are in consideration urge terest ue without notice. The Ohris Krenz given in co-owner thereof. nity had trustee of the or is within ing not. The statute he is same conveyed, ed deed obtains purchaser fied cash prove active and, ed with title when he made the declarations Motion overruled. Eor the reasons In the instant overruled. becоmes privies value purchase partition same as was whether not, declarations funds are in the absence no consideration in fraud of Appellants them at the time such in that the time of the name of manager estate, defense deeds to evidence. While the husband from the title, testimony. virtue community property, purchaser successfully urged by Ohris Krenz. to such as but, payment. interest *5 community property. he sees or of her money is, was the ban of therefor, to such all, only to one-half of he must land. value, the recital of the estopped equitable well as the subsequent purchaser well as those stated clearly four tracts be allowed estate, case, however, proven insist estate and cannot of the trial. Our stated standpoint controversy. deed, effect conveyance, In this force in the unsold motion for fit, under a recital remainder It was held $500 rights half Albert the same became the value of such half owner of one-half of fraud, heirs, grantor having account for the traced into he is in fact but the purely hearsay, the claims of general in our former from of them was case the consequently deeds to of his but land prior may dispose that could value of said participate inasmuch asserting admissible to subsequently equity, Ohris This consti- registration payment portion of The deeds should rehearing unrecord- the com wife, of which deed of not such the four said es commu- view is for val- in this dispose equita exclud- parties parted his in- it was Ohar- opin- pres certi- part- can be di- no as