Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 Tex. 558

Ross v. Martin

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1911

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1911-12-20

<p>1. —Community Property—Descent and Distribution.</p> <p>On the death • of the husband, no child surviving, community property of himself and wife descended to the surviving wife though there were grandchildren living. The latter were not children within the meaning of article 1653, Revised Statutes, governing such descent. (Pp. 560, -562.)</p> <p>2. —Same—Homestead.</p> <p>Community property of the husband and wife which had passed to the latter on the death of the husband, leaving no child surviving, and had been occupied by her and her minor grandchildren as a homestead, became subject to administration and sale to satisfy debts against her estate upon her death. Such minor grandchildren were constituents of the family for whom the homestead exemption was preserved during her life; but they were not "minor children ’ within the meaning of article 2046. Revised Statutes, and article^ 16, section 52, of the.Constitution; the homestead could not be set aside for their use on death of their grandmother. (Pp. 562, 563.)</p> <p>ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.</p> <p>3.—Same—Administrator's Sale—Innocent Purchaser.</p> <p>Property purchased, paid for and occupied by the husband and wife, the conveyance reciting a cash consideration being made to the wife after the husband’s death, was community estate and became the property of the wife if no child survived at the husband’s death; but if there was a then surviving son, one-half descended to him; and in that event, a purchaser at probate sale by the administrator of the estate of the wife on her decease would acquire only her half interest, unless protected as an innocent purchaser against the title of the son or his heirs. (P. 563.)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1911-12-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1966

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

30191119201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

¶2For the facts of this case we looked to the opinion of the chief justice of the Court of Civil Appeals and found this statement:

“Deck Martin and Charley Eogers are the grandchildren of Terrell and Seely Martin, deceased, and are their only surviving heirs. Eogers lost in the court below and did not appeal.”

¶3I do not find in the petition for writ of error nor in the defendant in error’s reply any challenge of the facts stated in the opinion of the chief justice. The natural conclusion was that Sim died before his father, otherwise Deck could not be an heir to the grandfather.

¶4Upon examining the statement of facts we find evidence from which a jury might find that Sim Martin was living when Terrell, his father, died. If that be true, Seely Martin was the owner of half of the land and Deck Martin the other half, therefore the sale of the land under an order of the Probate Court made in the administration of Seely Martin’s estate vested in' the purchaser only the right and interest of Seely Martin, unless the plaintiff in error or his vendor purchased in good faith without notice that the land was community property of Terrell and Seely Martin and paid a valuable consideration for it.

¶5The judgment heretofore entered is set aside and it is ordered that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals be reversed and the cause remanded. It is further ordered that the plaintiff in error recover of defendant in error all costs in the Court of Civil Appeals and this court.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

¶7Filed December 20, 1911.

/104/tex/558 · .json · Public domain