citation">201 U.S. 216, 26 S.Ct. 502, 50 L.Ed. page 732, 5 Ann.Cas. 740, held that a married woman although incapable of contracting under the laws of the state was liable for an assessment on stock of a national bank held by her. If the familiar rule, that in adopting the statute of another jurisdiction the construction placed on such statute by the court of last resort in the jurisdiction from which the statute was taken was also adopted, is to be applied, a further reason would be presented for holding Mrs. Boone's estate liable in this case.

The decision in the case of Chapman v. Pettus, supra, follows the general rule, with reference to the question here decided, in other jurisdictions, and in addition to the cases there cited we cite the following: Dreisbach v. Price, 133 Pa. 560, 19 A. 569; Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 342, 5 A. 497; Dickinson v. Traphagen, 147 Ala. 442, 41 So. 272.

The conclusion here is that the learned trial court erred in its conclusion of law that a married woman was not liable for assessment on bank stock owned by her individually. Hence we conclude that her individual estate being lots -E/4 lots -F/5 are subject to the payment made by the commissioner, and the trial court erred in not so holding.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed, with directions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff against lots -E/4 and -F/5 for the full amount of the assessment and directing that an execution issue in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of such assessment authorizing the sheriff *Page 871 or any constable of Eastland county to sell said lots or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy said assessment, interest, and cost, and if said lot or lots so sold shall bring more than enough to pay the amount due on said assessment, interest, and cost to pay the remainder over to the appellees, assuming, however, that if said lots do not sell for enough to pay the assessment, interest, and cost, no execution shall be issued against any of said appellees personally, but that the sale of the above-described property shall be in full payment of any and all claims of the plaintiff for the assessment sued for. The cost of this appeal is hereby taxed against appellees.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.

On Motion for Rehearing. Appellee has filed a very able motion for rehearing. However, it cites only one case not cited in his original brief, this being Arnold v. Leonard (Tex. Sup.) 273 S.W. page 799, insisting that this case overrules the opinion of the court in the case of Chapman v. Pettus (Tex.Civ.App.) 269 S.W. page 268. We regret that we cannot agree with appellee, and we adhere to our original opinion in holding that the case of Chapman v. Pettus, supra, governs the law in this case.

Appellee virtually admits that in order to reverse our opinion it will be necessary for this court to hold unconstitutional article 1123 of Revised Statutes as amended in 1921.

After giving careful consideration to all propositions raised in appellee's motion for new trial and all cases cited therein, we conclude that we were correct in our original opinion, and therefore motion for rehearing is overruled.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress