Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 337
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] CARR v. TUCKER. 337
Opinion of the Court.
crop grown upon the land of the wife by the labor of her
slaves, was community property. But certainly no one can insist
that the word " increase" can in any etymological sense
signify the hire or profit derived from the use or employment
of personal property. Who ever imagined that under the law
of 1848, the' hire of the slaves of the wife was her separate
property? That it was not, is so obvious that this is referred
to by the court as illustrating the argument leading to the conclusion
that the crop grown on the wife's land is not ; increase "
of land in the sense of the statute. (De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Texas,
25; Forbes v. Dunham, 24 Texas, 612; Portis v. Parker, 22
Texas, 702; Bateman v. Bateman, 25 Texas, 270.)
The word " increase" having received a judicial construction
prior to its use in the Constitution, it must be inferred that it
was used in a like sense in that instrument. It cannot, therefore,
we think, be plausibly maintained that the profits realized
by the use of the wife's personal property, or money received
from its hire while in possession, and subject to the control of
the husband, does not form a part of the community estate.
It does not follow, however, that appellant is therefore entitled
to recover against the damages for which he was liable for
the wrongful detention of the property of the wife-a demand
which lie may have against the husband. While, as we
have said, the products and profits accruing fiom its use, as
well as money realized by the husband or wife from the hire of
her personal property, belong to the community. Certainly
no one could imagine a creditor could by any direct process
have the property of the wife hired to pay his debt, or appropriated
to his use in any manner, to this end. Would not this,
in effect, be done if hecould wrongfully seize and hold the
wife's property, and then reconvene for his demand on the
husband against his liability for its use and hire, while suit is
pending against him for its recovery ?
While the wife's property is in the possession anrd under the
control of the husband, the trouble of its management, and the
ordinary expenses of the preservation and maintenance of prop22
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/345/: accessed July 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .