Pierce v. Fort

Citations

• 60 Tex. 464
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 359

Syllabus

<p>1. Separate acknowledgment.—It is not the duty of one purchasing the homestead of others to see to it that the notary does his duty in making a privy examination of the wife when she signs the deed; all that the law requires of the purchaser is to act fairly, and not avail himself knowingly of the fraudulent conduct of others.</p> <p>3. Husband and wipe — Same.— The husband having control of the community and separate property of the wife, one negotiating for the purchase of either is not bound to contract with the wife; and when, on purchasing, he is presented with a deed signed by husband and wife, and duly acknowledged before the proper officer, he has a right to believe that the wife has freely and with full knowledge given her consent to the same, and is not affected by the fraud of others in procuring her signature, of which he has no knowledge.</p> <p>3. Same.— Though if a fraud be perpetrated in securing her signature, and the purchaser, though ignorant of its character, is wilfully blind, that he may profit by it, he will be regarded as having perpetrated it, so far as it affects the validity of the deed.</p> <p>4. Deed — Mortgage — Evidence.— It was error to instruct a jury that they could not find a deed absolute on its face to be a mortgage, unless the fact that it was so intended should be established by two witnesses, or by one witness and strong corroborating circumstances. This rule is applicable only to cases in which it is sought to establish a trust by proving the declarations of a deceased trustee, or when the trustee is testifying to the trust in his own interest. Distinguished from Moreland v. Barnhart, 44 Tex., 275; and Peters v. Clements, 46 Tex., 114, followed.</p>