Johnson v. Johnson

Citations

• 65 Tex. 87
• 1885 Tex. LEXIS 315

Syllabus

<p>1. Verbal Partition—Estoppel.—A father made a verbal gift to his two sons of a one hundred and sixty acre tract of land and an adjacent forty acre tract, the two hundred acres to be divided equally between the donees as they might agree. By mutual agreement, plaintiff (one of the sons) took the forty acre tract and sixty acres off the north end of the one hundred and sixty acre piece, defendant’s husband (the other son) taking one hundred acres off the south end of same. The division line was agreed upon, marked and fenced, and each put improvements on his part. The father afterwards gave plaintiff a deed to the north half of the one hundred and sixty acres, thus giving him about twenty acres claimed by defendant. Held:</p> <p>(1) That the verbal partition was valid. (Following Shannon v. Taylor, 16 Tex., 413; Stuart v. Baker, 17 Tex., 417; Houston v. Sneed, 15 Tex., 307, etc.)</p> <p>(2) Since the father seemed indifferent as to what particular part of the land each son should take, the verbal partition agreed upon prior to the time the father made the deeds was as binding as though the two sons had held the entire land as tenants in common by perfect title. (Huffman v. Cartwright, 44 Tex., 296.)</p> <p>(3) The subsequent conveyance gave the power to carry out the verbal partition, not the right to disaffirm it.</p> <p>(4) The fact that defendant, after the death of her husband, accepted a deed from the father to the south half of the one hundred and sixty acre tract did not deprive her of any right acquired by her husband under the partition.</p> <p>2. Charge.—See statement of facts for charge held to be erroneous.</p>