Texas & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Robards

Citations

• 60 Tex. 545
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 375

Syllabus

<p>1. Separate property — Husband and wife.— Though the statute gives the husband the sole management and control of the wife’s separate property during coverture, this will not authorize him to control or incumber her real estate except her consent be given in the mode prescribed by the statute, though he can, it would seem, invest her money in the purchase of property and in the erection of buildings thereon.</p> <p>2. Same.—A railway company which stipulated by contract with the husband for certain special benefits to accrue to him in consideration that he should erect a hotel at a depot upon property owned by the wife, cannot, after the husband has complied with his part of the contract, avoid compliance on its part, by asserting the coverture of the wife and the absence of her assent to the contract in the manner pointed out by the statute.</p> <p>8. Railway company — Contract.— Where a contract is made with the president of a railway company, and signed by him and the secretary, though i not authorized by the directors, yet it appears that they knew of it, and,, making no objection, stood by and saw the other party performing his part of the same, the company is bound.</p> <p>4. Same.— A railway company may bind itself to maintain a permanent depot at a particular place, , , . , ,</p> <p>5. Same.— A contract made by a railway company for the building of a hotel by another at its depiot, in consideration of which it agreed to encourage the proprietors of the hotel with the patronage of the company, and to dissuade all other parties from erecting a hotel at that depot, is not a contract in restraint of trade nor beyond the power of the corporation.</p>