Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Tex. 96

Farr v. Wright

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1863-07-01

<p>In a suit against the husband and wife on the individual note of the husband, executed for land deeded to the wife, it is error to render judgment against the wife for the amount of the, note.</p> <p>The wife held the land subject to ¡ the vendors lien, but was in no other way responsible.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1927

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Moore, J.

¶1The judgment in this case is obviously erroneous. The suit was brought on the individual note of the husband, J. Fan-. There are no facts alleged in the petition making the wife in any manner responsible for the debt. That the title to the land in consideration of which the note was given by the husband Was executed to the wife does not justify a personal judgment against her for the amount due upon the note. (Lynch v. Bikes, 21 Tex., 229.) The judgment by default was tantamount to a decree pro confesso, (Ricks v. Pinson, 21 Tex., 507, and cases therein cited,) and authorized a decree, against the wife, for the sale of the land in consideration of which the note was given. *97She held the land subject to the vendor’s lien for the purchase money, but was in no other manner responsible for the debt. The judgment against her was in tills respect improper, and must therefore he reversed and reformed.

¶2Reversed and reformed.

/27/tex/96 · .json · Public domain