Johnson v. Johnson
Johnson v. Johnson
Opinion of the Court
It is well settled in this state that a verbal partition of land is valid. Shannon v. Taylor, 16 Tex., 413; Stuart w. Baker, 17 Tex., 417; Houston v. Sneed, 15 Tex, 307; Huffman v. Cartwright, 44 Tex., 296.
The deeds made to the respective parties by Alexander Johnson were not the sole foundation of their rights.
It is evident that Alexander Johnson was indifferent as to what particular part of the land either son should have; and we are of the opinion that the verbal partition made between them, prior to the time Alexander Johnson made his deeds, was as binding as though the two sons had held the entire land as tenants in common by perfect title, and that their acts bind their several interests in the land, although the same were not perfected by deed until subsequent to the partition. Huffman v. Cartwright, 44 Tex., 301.
As was said in the case just cited, the subsequent conveyance to Ellis Johnson would only put it in his power to discharge his obligation to William Johnson under their verbal partition, and would give him no right to disaffirm it.
The fact that Mrs. Johnson received a deed for the south half of the one hundred and sixty acre tract, after the residue of the land had been conveyed to Ellis Johnson, could not prevent the enforcement of any right which her husband had acquired by contract with him ; and especially so, as she only took a life-estate in the land, with remainder to the children of William Johnson.
The court did not err in refusing to give the charges asked by the plaintiff, for one was erroneous and the other was contained substantially in the charge given, in so far as it was proper under the case made by the evidence.
The evidence was somewhat conflicting, but it cannot be said that the verdict was not in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence.
Affirmed.
[Opinion delivered November 24, 1885.]
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ellis Johnson v. Mary A. Johnson
- Cited By
- 8 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 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: (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.) (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.) (3) The subsequent conveyance gave the power to carry out the verbal partition, not the right to disaffirm it. (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. 2. Charge.—See statement of facts for charge held to be erroneous.