Chrisman v. Wyatt

26 S.W. 759, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 40, 1894 Tex. App. LEXIS 251
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 4, 1894
DocketNo. 991.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 26 S.W. 759 (Chrisman v. Wyatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chrisman v. Wyatt, 26 S.W. 759, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 40, 1894 Tex. App. LEXIS 251 (Tex. Ct. App. 1894).

Opinion

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

The single question raised by this appeal is, whether a certain dispositive instrument, executed and delivered on the 24th day of February, 1886, by Phcebe Wyatt to J. A. Wyatt, is a will or a deed. It recites as its consideration, “love and affection,” “and other valuable considerations;” contains the usual granting, habendum, and warranty clauses, and concludes as follows: “But it is hereby expressly understood, that I reserve to myself the full ownership and control of the above named premises during my natural life, and that at my death this property belongs to the said J. H. Wyatt. This is the same land which was deeded to my husband, Calvin Wyatt, and his bodily heirs, by Stephen C. Rogen and his wife, Josephine C. Rogen, on the 18th day of July, 1860, and is *41 intended as a relinquishment of all my interest in the same, except the ownership and control during my natural life.”

Delivered April 4, 1894.

The court below found that the instrument had been executed and delivered at the date specified; that the only consideration for its execution was natural love and affection; and, in effect, that it was intended by the grantor to convey, at the date of its execution, all her interest except a life estate in the land in controversy; concluding, therefore, that the instrument was a deed, and not a will.

In this conclusion we concur, and affirm the judgment, especially in view of article 556 of the Revised Statutes.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cushenberry v. Profit
153 S.W.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
North v. North
2 S.W.2d 481 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Turner v. Montgomery
286 S.W. 624 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Bruce
233 S.W. 535 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Lewis v. Curnutt
106 N.W. 914 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
McLain v. Garrison
88 S.W. 484 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1905)
Griffith v. Douglas
48 S.E. 129 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
President, Etc., of Bowdoin College v. Merritt
75 F. 480 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1896)
Estate of Williams
5 Coffey 1 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 S.W. 759, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 40, 1894 Tex. App. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrisman-v-wyatt-texapp-1894.