Stoker v. Bailey & Goodjohn

62 Tex. 299, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 232
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 28, 1884
DocketCase No. 1700
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 62 Tex. 299 (Stoker v. Bailey & Goodjohn) 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
Stoker v. Bailey & Goodjohn, 62 Tex. 299, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 232 (Tex. 1884).

Opinion

Stayton, Associate Justice.

This cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the conclusions of fact and law found by the court are found in the record, and also a statement of facts.

There is no material conflict in the evidence, and it proves with all reasonable certainty that the property was bought for Mrs. M. L. Stoker, and that it was paid for with her separate funds, and that the deed was made to her, and so stood of record at the time at which the appellees bought at the sale under execution against J. A. Stoker; and it further appears that the appellees had actual notice, before they purchased, of her rights. The purchase of the property by the appellees was made under an execution in their own favor, and it is not shown that they paid for the property otherwise than by crediting the amount of their bid on their judgment.

The conclusions of law, by the court, seem in the main to have been in accordance with the rulings of this court in Parker v. Coop, 60 Tex., 114, and McKamey v. Thorp, 61 Tex., 649, and the judgment was rendered in favor of the appellees on the sole ground that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the property was paid for with the separate funds of Mrs. Stoker. We are of the opinion that this fact was proved as clearly as such a fact can he proved in cases in which money is invested several times, and that the court below, on the evidence, should have held the proof sufficient to establish it.

For the error in this respect, the judgment of the district court will be reversed and here rendered in favor of appellants, and it is accordingly so ordered.

Reversed and rendered.

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

Related

Howard v. Howard
48 S.W.2d 489 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Stewart v. Marshburn
240 S.W. 331 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
In re Estate of Foster
4 Coffey 33 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1909)
Masterson v. Burnett
66 S.W. 90 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1901)
Smith v. J. J. Olsen & Son
56 S.W. 568 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1900)
Barnes v. McArthur
22 S.W. 770 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)
Evans v. Welborn
12 S.W. 230 (Texas Supreme Court, 1889)
Edwards v. Brown
4 S.W. 380 (Texas Supreme Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Tex. 299, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoker-v-bailey-goodjohn-tex-1884.