Carlton v. Cameron

Texas Supreme Court

Carlton v. Cameron

54 Tex. 72, 1880 Tex. LEXIS 127

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 7, 1880

DocketCase No. 3943

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 54 Tex. 72 (Carlton v. Cameron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlton v. Cameron, 54 Tex. 72, 1880 Tex. LEXIS 127 (Tex. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Gould, Associate Justice.

Although the instrument of July 16, 1836, had the form of a deed, and was placed upon record, it was nevertheless testamentary in its character, and inoperative as a deed, if the intention of the maker appears to have been that it should take effect only on his death. LooMng to the terms of the instrument, the nature of the reservation, and of the estate to be created, and bearing in mind that the court below, acting without a jury, passed upon all questions of fact, we are of opmion that the court did not err in its judgment, if it was based on its opimon that the intention of the maker was that the instrument take effect only on Ms death, and-that it was therefore testamentary in its character. There is ample authority supporting such a construction of similar instruments. Hester v. Young, 2 Kelly, 46; Turner v. Scott, 51 Pa. St., 130; Epperson v. Mills, 19 Tex., 67; Ferguson v. Ferguson, 27 Tex., 344. As we are of opinion that on this ground the judgment is correct, it is not material to pass on other grounds on wMch it is also sought to support it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Opimon delivered December 7, 1880.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gould, Associate Justice.

Although the instrument of July 16, 1836, had the form of a deed, and was placed upon record, it was nevertheless testamentary in its character, and inoperative as a deed, if the intention of the maker appears to have been that it should take effect only on his death. LooMng to the terms of the instrument, the nature of the reservation, and of the estate to be created, and bearing in mind that the court below, acting without a jury, passed upon all questions of fact, we are of opmion that the court did not err in its judgment, if it was based on its opimon that the intention of the maker was that the instrument take effect only on Ms death, and-that it was therefore testamentary in its character. There is ample authority supporting such a construction of similar instruments. Hester v. Young, 2 Kelly, 46; Turner v. Scott, 51 Pa. St., 130; Epperson v. Mills, 19 Tex., 67; Ferguson v. Ferguson, 27 Tex., 344. As we are of opinion that on this ground the judgment is correct, it is not material to pass on other grounds on wMch it is also sought to support it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Opimon delivered December 7, 1880.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Tex. 72, 1880 Tex. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlton-v-cameron-tex-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack