Therefore, Plaintiff is not an innocent or bona fide purchaser. Tram Lumber Co. v. Hancock, 70 Tex. 312, 7 S.W. 724; Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Niles, Tex.Com.App., 255 S.W. 604; Hagaman v. Shaklee, Tex.Civ.App., 243 S.W. 795 (Writ of Error Refused); Straus v. Shamblin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 598 (Writ of Error Dismissed); Meacham v. Halley, 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 967. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Niles, supra; Cook v. Smith, 107 Tex. 119, 174 S.W. 1094, 3 A.L.R. 940; Threadgill v. Bickerstaff, 87 Tex. 520, 29 S.W. 757; and Meacham v. Halley, supra.

On the other hand, and although the community presumption of Art. 4619, Vernon's Tex.Civ.Stats.Ann., relates to assets rather than debts and the reference in Art. 4620, supra, to `their debts contracted during marriage' does not speak in similar terms of presumption, we are yet accustomed to associate with the community all debts as well as assets that accrue during the marriage. If the burden which the court shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant be, as it says, not overly heavy on the latter, it would yet seem at least equally light and qually consistent with traditional concepts, if placed on the plaintiff, who has the general burden of proof. Of the decisions cited to uphold the view below, that of Straus v. Shamblin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 598, by the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals, application for writ of error dismissed, seems closest in point. It was a land suit, in which the plaintiffs Shamblin proved a prima facie title by a deed to them from the common source of the community lands in question, the defendants then introducing a judgment against Mrs. Shamblin and an execution and sale thereunder, but without evidence as to the nature of the claim behind the judgment.

The conclusion is that if the sheriff's deed describes property other than that which was levied on or sold, the deed does not pass title. Straus v. Shamblin, 120 S.W.2d 598, 603 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1938, writ dism'd); 24 Tex.Jur.2d Executions § 117. The appellants say there was obviously an intent by all of the parties to support the description in the constable's deed.

"We simply have a case in which the respondent-plaintiff had to prove an execution invalid or presumptively invalid and failed to do so." The Supreme Court also cited the case of Straus v. Shamblin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 598. In the case before us, there is nothing in the record to show anything invalid, or presumptively invalid, about the execution or order of sale. Mrs. Rosie Flores did not raise the matter of her coverture at the time of the trial, and the judgment against her is now valid.

Fairbanks v. Dennett Motor Sales Co., Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 474, and no compelling reason is apparent why it should not also be applied to those judgments against the wife only when the contention is advanced that the basis of the judgment is a contract in which the husband joined although by reason of bankruptcy or some other cause he is not a party to the judgment. Cullum v. Lowe, Tex.Civ.App., 9 S.W.2d 70. While the issue of 'necessaries' was involved in Straus v. Shamblin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 598, the reasoning of the opinion is applicable to the matter of the husband's joinder. As a usual thing, judgment based upon obligations in which both husband and wife join are rendered against both jointly or against the husband.

If so, then it was and is the duty of this court, in passing upon the contentions here asserted, to view the evidence contained in the agreed statement and the reasonable inferences and deductions that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the landowners and to assume that the trial court found all issuable facts raised thereby, if any, in support of the judgment appealed from. Besteiro v. Besteiro, Tex.Com.App., 65 S.W.2d 759, point 5, Eaton v. Husted, 141 Tex. 349, 172 S.W.2d 493, point 2; Steere v. Stockyards Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App. 266 S.W. 531, point 2, err. ref.; Patterson v. Farmers' Royalty Holdings Co., Tex.Civ.App. 79 S.W.2d 917, point 1, err. dis.; Straus v. Shamblin, Tex.Civ.App. 120 S.W.2d 598, point 4, err. dis.; Corbett v. State et al., Tex.Civ.App. 153 S.W.2d 664, point 2, err. ref. Having carefully considered the motion of appellants for rehearing, we have concluded the same should be overruled, and it is accordingly so ordered.