Phelps v. Brackett

24 Tex. 236
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1859·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Roberts, J.

The judgment, as originally rendered, subjects both the community and separate property of the defendant. The petition does not state that the defendant was a feme covert, at the time of the execution of the note. Had she moved to arrest the judgment, so far as it subjected the community property, the motion might have been properly sustained. The petition does state a good cause of action, as a feme sole, and therefore her property is liable for it. Sustaining the motion, therefore, to arrest the judgment, as to the separate property, was erroneous. The judgment must be reversed and reformed, so as to let the judgment stand as originally entered.

The statement of the fact, that she was a feme covert, as made in the motion, comes too late. It should have been pleaded.

Judgment reversed and reformed.

Reversed and reformed.

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

Phelps v. Brackett, 24 Tex. 236 (Tex. 1859).

24 Tex. 236 (Phelps v. Brackett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hunt v. Wichita County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2
213 S.W.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
Langley v. Norris
167 S.W.2d 603 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Gamel v. City Nat. Bank of Colorado Tex.
258 S.W. 1043 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1924)
Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker
243 S.W. 766 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
City Nat. Bank of Colorado v. Gamel
241 S.W. 735 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Hamlett v. Coates
182 S.W. 1144 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Ellis v. Howard Smith Co.
80 S.W. 633 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1904)
Smith v. Borden
11 L.R.A. 585 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1891)
Caldwell v. Brown
43 Tex. 216 (Texas Supreme Court, 1875)