Tiemann v. Tiemann

Citations

• 34 Tex. 522

Syllabus

<p>1. In decreeing a divorce a vinculo on the suit of the wife, the district court decreed to the plaintiff a certain town lot, which appeared to be community property; and in the decree adjudged that “ all title and claim set up to the same by the defendant is hereby annulled and vacated,” and that the defendant be enjoined from interfering, etc. Held, that the decree, if within the competency of the court, would operate to divest the defendant of title to real estate ; and as it was not within the power of the court to divest such title, the decree could not be sustained. (Pascbal’s Digest, article 3452.)</p> <p>3. On the suit of a married woman for a divorce a vincu’o, the court below decreed the divorce, and awarded to the plaintiff the custody of the only child of the marriage. Held, that this virtually constituted the wife the head of the family, and therefore there was no error in further decreeing.to her the use of the homestead, which was community property. But it was not within the power of the court to give her more than a life estate in it; and this court reforms the decree so as to give to the wife the sole use and right to oeenpy the homestead during the term of her natural life.</p>