Hanrick v. Patrick
119 U.S. 156 (1886)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U.S. 156 (1886)

Hanrick v. Patrick

Argued October 28-29, 1886

Decided November 29, 1886

119 U.S. 156

Syllabus

When the statutes of the state in which an action at law in a federal court is tried permit a third party to intervene pro interesse suo, as in equity, and on the trial a general verdict is rendered and a general judgment entered against both the intervenor and the losing party, the intervenor is not a necessary party to the writ of error to this Court if his interest is clearly separable and distinct.

Following the decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas, and also agreeing with them, this Court holds that § 9 of the Act of the Legislature of Texas of March 18, 1845, so far as it conferred upon aliens a defeasible estate by inheritance from a citizen notwithstanding the alienage, is not repealed by § 4 of the Act of February 15, 1854, and that immediately after the passage of the British Naturalization Act of 1870, defeasible titles of British alien heirs to land in Texas became indefeasible.

The grantor in a deed and all the subscribing witnesses being residents in a foreign country, proof of its execution by proof of the handwriting of the subscribing witnesses held sufficient.

An unnoted erasure in a deed changing the name of the grantee from Elizabeth to Eliza may be explained by proof that Elizabeth Eliza are identical and the same person.

The general rule in Texas that property purchased during the marriage, whether the conveyance be to husband or wife, is prima facie community property holds only where the purchase is made with community funds, and the presumption may be rebutted by proof that the purchase was intended for the wife.

When a deed of land in Texas is made to a married woman for a nominal consideration, the presumption is that it was intended to vest the title in her as separate property.

The power of attorney through which intervenors claim considered.

A covenant of general warranty in a deed of "all the right, title, and interest" of the grantor in the premises described does not estop him from asserting a subsequently acquired title thereto.

Page 119 U. S. 158

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.