Lynch v. Elkes

21 Tex. 229
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 21 Tex. 229 (Lynch v. Elkes) 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
Lynch v. Elkes, 21 Tex. 229 (Tex. 1858).

Opinion

Hemphill, Cii. J.

We are of opinion that there was no" error in decreeing the sale of the land for the satisfaction of the vendor’s lien. The payment of the purchase money of the land was by two distinct notes, and the vendor's lien on each was equivalent to a mortgage, subject to forfeiture on the failure to pay the notes or either of them. There was error however in a point not suggested by appellants, and that is in rendering any judgment against the wife except for the foreclosure of the lion upon the land. There was no proof that the land purchased was to be her separate property, and, if there had been, Courts would not allow the whole, perhaps, of her separate estate to be sacrificed in attempts to make additional purchases without proof of benefit or advantage, and with the certainty in fact of detriment and loss. I shall not enter into the discussion of the liabilities of married women. It is manifest at a glance that if obligations of this character were enforced against the property generally of a feme covert, she might be suddenly reduced to penury and the shield of her disability be rendered wholly worthless if not converted into an instrument for her destruction.

Judgment to be rendered against the wife only to the extent of foreclosure of the lien upon the land.

Judgment reformed.

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

Related

Sommers v. Kramer
96 S.W.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Stevenson v. Abernathy
69 S.W.2d 850 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Davis v. Cicero-Smith Lumber Co.
55 S.W.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Austin, Commissioner v. Strong
1 S.W.2d 872 (Texas Supreme Court, 1928)
Ware v. Hall
273 S.W. 925 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Poe v. Hall
241 S.W. 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Johnson v. Scott
208 S.W. 671 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Akin v. Thompson
196 S.W. 625 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Miller v. Poulter
189 S.W. 105 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Howell v. McMurry Lumber Co.
132 S.W. 848 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Billingsly v. Swenson Land Company
123 S.W. 194 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Douglass v. Blount
58 L.R.A. 699 (Texas Supreme Court, 1902)
Peet, Yale & Bowling v. Hereford Bros.
1 White & W. 502 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1880)
Rhodes v. Gibbs
39 Tex. 432 (Texas Supreme Court, 1873)
Farr v. Wright
27 Tex. 96 (Texas Supreme Court, 1863)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Tex. 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-elkes-tex-1858.