*1
(Tex.
agreements,
according
destroyed by
must be enforced
defense
fire. The
is
cotton
judgment
their terms. The
will therefore be
in the Wade
the"
cotton
insured while
Jacksonville,
judgment
reversed,
Neely
city
here rendered in fa-
warehouse
plaintiff
compress
vor of the
error.
it was at
but when burned
city.
appears
that four suc-
It
the evidence
.policies
been written
insurance
cessive
beginning
cotton,
1918.
October
et
GUERRA
al. v. DE GONZALEZ et al.
force,
policy
the de-
inwas
While the third
(No. 6582.)
agents
error,
notice to
without
fendant
plaintiff
compress.
the cotton (Court
removed
Appeals
of Civil
of Texas. San Anto
policy ex-
Rehearing
the third
When
nio. June
1921.
De
24, 1921.)
agent
nied
pired
error
June
error
the defendant
instructed
Description sufficient,
1. Deeds
If
<fte>42—
true
agent,
year. The
one
insurance for
new the
thereby.
location of land
ascertained
knowing
moved
had been
cotton
not
A
of land in a
insuring
policy
compress, wrote a
veyance
sufficient, if
is
true
location
warehouse,
Neely
the Wade
cotton while
ascertained,
it con-
risk,
premium
charged
for that
a
designation
tains an erroneous or
false call
the rate
than
less
description,
omitting
cents on
was 50
or
or
or other
compress.
disregarding
at the
stored
sufficient
cotton
remains
description by
may yet
which the land
be iden-
policy
and received
mailed to
located,
conveyance
tified and
it,
reading
error, who, without
defendant
put
is effective.
Upon
among
papers.
away
judg-
rendered a
trial court
locating
Description
—
state of
Mortgages
<S=»494
ground
policy.
although
land
part
county.
held
amount
erroneously
of it
recited to be in named
error.
that was
might
different
The situation
orig
a
insurance been
this contract
certainty,
the land to be sold with
recited
writing
policy.
aof
renewal
inal instead
(cid:127)
that was all
county,
in one
original
is
insurance
contract of
an
duty
fact,
whereas
after a
division
location
ascertain the
insurer
certain tracts were
in another
subject-matter
and to cor
of insurance
good.
was nevertheless
in the contract.
rectly
location
state
Mortgages
county
<§fcu>502
correctly
—Clerk
describ
But,
has
insurer
when the
held not
court
sale
authorized
issue order of
property in one written
location
ed
contract
foreclosure,
requiring
insurance,
to re
is directed
county
county.
another
sell lands
still
in
further
without
insurance
new
Sayles’
In view of Vernon’s
Ann. Civ. St.
length
time the
as to
structions
county
1914,
trict court
order of sale
a
arts.
the clerk of
dis-
right
run,
to assume
policy
he
has
authority to
without
issue an
subject-matter
the insurance
requiring
the sher-
as described
iff
sell lands
still
another
the same
location are
its
the former
another
Orient
Ins. Co.
contract.
Wingfield,
Mortgages
authority as to
<S=»507—Sheriff’s
the defendant
excuse
788. The
sale of lands
within and
agent
failing
to inform the
error for
after division stated.
compress is
removed
Sayles’
cotton had
Under Vernon’s
Ann. Civ. St.
change
3727, providing
of location
know
that he did not
an order for sale
art.
un-
may be issued to a
of insurance. der foreclosure
or the rate
the risk
affected
property
thereof
sit-
where
uated,
personal
like
fire risk'of
That
en-
a named
the sheriff of
principally
the char
cotton is determined
land, part of
of tracts of
make sale
titled to
which
building in
location
acter and
only
read-
after
were within
by a
too obvious
be overlooked
is stored
to.
subsequent
justment
lines
ordinary prudence.
person
If the defend
mortgage,
but was
author-
not
execution
even a casual
had made
exam
ant
in the new
sell lands
ized to
policy
discov
ination of his
upon which his insurance
conditions
ered
’
Trespass
of reim-
title <®=>32—offer
plain-
be true that the
written.
precedent
to recov-
condition
bursement
readily
insured the
error would
tiff
cotton
ery.
compress,
only
requiring
try title,
a claim that
premium.
payment of a small additional
invalid,
part of
because
sale was
a foreclosure
the lands
'
case.
But that
decisive
improperly
say
plain-
answer to
it did
sufficient
ain named
willingness
plead
to make reimburse-
contract.
make
kind
tiffs to
ment.
contracts,
Insurance
like other written
Digests
Key-Numbered
Indexes
KEy-NUMBER
in all
other cases see same
fisoFor
*2
DE GUERRA DE GONZALEZ
@.w.)
(232
pleaded
@=ol
Laborde,
answered,
setting up
Appeal
177(1)
who
and error
—Remand
permit plaintiff
liens,
amend.
his
ment and
scription
prayed
judg-
from
due
These
cover such
fering
cut
county;
amounts
sufficiency
directly involved;
was
improvements,
erty
question
the court
subject-matter,
conclusions
sum
pellants
pellees
thereof,
proceeded
suit to
Manuela
lants, having paid
debts and
as such
en to secure such
said
the
cancellation
charges,
ed
of the lands
did
amounts the
and resulted
was also
[1]
and
grouped
'satisfy
lands were
out
thereon
order.
jurisdiction
involved,
tried before
that the land was the
of
of such
questions
$6,929.27,
foreclose the liens
filed
Jesus
of Starr
costs, thereby
When the
in their
the sheriff of Starr
was
the latter
Jesus and
for the amounts so
pay
Gonzalez
embracing
discharged
with the
lands without
decreed.
are embraced
Guerra, for
created,
reimburse,
of law.
raised
*3
they
taxes
be
latter
and other
July
no
of the
(c)
sued
subject
liens without
in a
Guerra Gonzalez.
or
court
written
community;
debts,
situated
appellees
reply
pleadings
will be discussed in their
questions
the.
Jesus Guerra Gonzalez. court seems
tender to
lawfully
for,
paid in
and her
affecting
to order
said amounts
3 main issues:
debts,’ and,
liens were
all of
(b)
so freed
or
right
Manuela
There
trial on
many
Texas
there
liens,
the liens
court without
paid
findings
(Duval county
innocent
appellants-
and into Jim
reimbursing,
some
could
or
when Jim
title.
children, against proceedings
community
accruing
for rents
was atn
reimbursing ap-
out,
validity
from said
and
there
paym'ent
outset
contentions of
paid
Gonzalez,
otherwise,
pleading,
.within
lawfully giv-
assignments
created,
charges
not recover tions were
jurisdiction
or
purchasers,
That court
community
paid.
no
The cause
the lands briefs that
possession controversy
facts and
'rendered
case
appellees,
out.
for $350
$62,934.»
(a)
original maps
thereof those lands not
against
of the the lands
appeal ceedings
in the fective.
tracts
to re-
or
appel- ume,
debts,
Starr
Hogg
Hogg
those which
prop-
prop-
jury,
paid
The
and
Ap-
fix-
the then the
the
of- such
all
no
e
App. 102,
law.
valid.
ment
cifically
This
instrument,
in Jim
purpose
it
close on the Jim
scription
jecting the
parties,
references
Hogg county,
remains
wholly
ated in Starr
or
and
true location of the land
cate
tice
ment or
showing
and bounds were
foreclosure
inal
the lands were all described as
fied. Under
the
lar
on the trial of this
erence to
lands
and
[2]
designation
the district
toas
patent,
if it contains an
complete
tracts herein sued
number, survey
grantees
This
of foreclosure
and
although
actually
cited.
expressly
in those instruments
West v. Houston Oil
state,
or
omitting
described in
conveyance
And
sufficient
descriptions
each tract
nevertheless
yet
whereby
number,
theory
there was
other evidence were
followed in the
proceedings,
reference to
intended
effect of
the
sufficient
judgment,
are
location of
sheriff’s
the rule
description
so,
view, also,
be
and
or
county;
purpose it was
description
judgment,
number of
lying
so held in
every
and none were
sheriff’s
readily
sheriff’s
description,
identified and
if
take
description by
predicated upon
patentees,
and
number,
disregarding
from
the lands were all
ascertainable.
by disregarding or re
the
cause, however,
by that
thereby
deed
to locate
erroneous or false
in fact no
reasonable
now
all
descriptions
whereas
are
record reference
these
the foreclosure
Hogg county;
located and
deed.
names of the
Hogg
deed
order
the latter
conveyance
its conclusions
acres,
position
pleadings
well established
and other record
Co.,
lands
the foreclosure
tract
were
land
or other
be
negativing
were situatéd
court to fore
the
same
and.
sufficient
county,
fact
them
not effected.
county. Up
stated
located,
ascertained,
if
introduced,
being
authorities
the certifi
detail, giv
in a
date,
by tract,
Tex.
the trial
in their
particu
appears
located,
descrip
In the
the de
identi
official
detail,
it the
metes
as to
there
judg
judg
way,
situ
orig
spe
Civ.
call'
ref
vol
full
no
ef
DE GUERRA v.
GONZALEZ
(232 !.W.)
our
is without
tlie
contention
cite a
number
decisions in
support
ex-
merit.
pressly
foreclosure was
of their contention
every
each and
tract was
decreed
to issue an order of
of land
in the deeds of
and sale to the
included
Starr to sell the lands
being specifically
pleadings,
lying wholly
each
tract
-in Jim
those di
described,
rectly
minutely
point
Montague,
so that there could
Alred v.
uncertainty
603, Casseday
no sort
about Tex.
of mistake
Am. Dec.
v. Nor
ris,
Terry O’Neal,
the lands thus
notwith-
locating
standing
in
9 S.
of them
and in
of those
it is so
as a matter of fact
held.
when
[3, Appellants
the
ly
4]
showed conclusive-
detail
cite the
Menard
cases of
App. 627,
McDonald,
lay
that'
in Jim v.
*4
Hogg county.
64,
This false
Bartlett,
note
the de-
Buse
control,
335,
scription,
52,
which
Blagge,
does
21 S. W.
and Moore v.
description
979,
overcome
in
Tex. 151,
and
neutralized
definite, certain,
partition
suits,
which is
and does those decisions relate to
control,
disregarded
rejected,
governed by
will be
and
which are
different statutes
peculiarly
and the true
effect. This
relating
and rules
to such
ceedings,
not,
true
locates the
identifies and
and which do
our
wholly
actually
as it
lies,,some
control
land
here. Both article
and
article
wholly
Hogg,
expressly provide,
of it
Starr
some
3727
order
one that
the
the
opin-
partly
In our
and
of it
in both.
of sale shall
some
issue
to
sheriff of
ion,
effectually
county
situated,
fore-
property
decreed
counties,
upon
may
in
the
closure
the other that such order
issue
some
truth,
county
state-
so hold.
property,
to the
part
“where
or
thereof,
officers,
executed
is situated.” Public
approved by
sheriffs,
embraces this
clerks
such as
thority
derive
au
prescribes
conclusion.
alone from the law which
step
brings
powers
fore-
us to
duties,
This
the next
and their
acts in
proceedings,
authority
the issuance
permit
closure
excess of this
will not be
county
any one,
clerk of the district court
of
ted to bind
especially
more
directing the sheriff of
may
order
an
sale
where
his
under
decisions
such acts one
be
divested
county
fore-
property.
quite
sell all the lands thus
Starr
to
clear to us that
lying
including
those tracts
closed
articles mentioned
and under
£he
Hogg county.
partly
construing
them,
or
Jim
as well as under
terms
will be observed
thd decree of
the clerk of the
county
clerk was directed
any
cree
was without
provided
authority
requir
an
as
to “issue
law
order
to issue an order
sale
eases,
ing
lying
county
sale
in such
the sheriff
to sell lands
judgments
satisfy
described,
herein
as
rendered,”
contend
authority
etc.
herein
the sheriff
to sell such
relegated
ar-
provision
the clerk to
lands, by
that this
order or
virtue
otherwise.
of that
Statutes, and that
Vernon’s Civil
ticle
are of the
that under the
had no author-
clerk
statute
decree
under the
the clerk
law
did have
county, as
ity-
authority
issue,
issue
sheriff of
sell
county
did,
authority
execute,
an' order
he
'the
or
partly in
requiring
Jim
or
der
the sale of the lands
issuing
or-
partly
partly
that the act of the
Starr coun
void, in so
clearly
ty.
was without
der
of foreclosure
includ
decree
lands,
The.
plainly pro
the sale
far
county
directed
ed those
article
provides that:
Article
lands.
that:
vides
any
execution,
mortgages
inwrit
“Where the
or
“Judgments
for the
delivery
requires
thereof,
plaintiff recov- nature
sale or
be that
liens shall
other
and
er his
sure
máy
personal property,
specific
damages
or
a foreclo-
real
debt,
with
property
county
property,
sub-
or
plaintiff’s
issued to the
where the
on the
lien
part
judgments
thereof,
some
is situated.”
thereto,
ject
guardians, executors, administrators
any
or
contend that
shall issue
article
sale
relat-
an order
constable
property
county where such
“judgments
it does
fore-
” *
* *
ours.)
(Italics
may he.
mortgages
liens,”
closure
and other
providing that “an order
sale shall issue
quote article 3727:
We also
to the- sheriff
which” the
n upon “may
property
situated,”
execution,
any
or
inwrit
the na
“Where the
special
nature,
in its
exclusive
other
requires
delivery
thereof,
the sale
ture
or
remedies,
general
control
specific
personal property,
over
real or
be is
statutes,
provides
property, such as article
where
some
sued to
(Italics
thereof,
property
ours.)
part-
is situated.’’
effect
where
(Tex.
SOUTHWESTERN
void,
ground
another,
on the
ly
writ under which
in one
empower
acted
could not
Dal-
the sheriff of
to either
order
sale
las
sell
land
coun-
situated Denton
agree
Ar-
the contention.
We
ticle
ty.
proposition,
We overrule this
p.
(Laws
enacted
[present
facts in
the
article
that,
nature
specific
this case. Article 2279
applica-
specifically
provision
394), made no
3727], Sayles’
Statutes, provides
Revised
lying partly in two
to the sale of lands
ble
execution,
‘where an
in the
writ
foreclose
of suits to
The venue
counties.
requires
delivery
thereof,
mortgages,
otherwise
personal
deeds
affecting
propérty,
real or
issued to the
where the
writ,
in either
thereof is situated.’
was fixed
Here a
viz.
two
execution,
deeds, an order of
provided
nature
an
Subsequently
required
part
‘specific
property,
the sale of
real
mortgages,
instruc-
deeds
of which was
Dallas
situated in
affecting
title to such
ments
which the writ
issued.
of this
conditions
might
notices,
pendens
lis
literally
article are
fulfilled
this instance.
thereof,
“The rule invoked
in error
venue,
exercise
situated. The
applies
ordinary execution,
case of
registration
instruments
of such
resting
moneyed
purely
Be
just
up-
binding
either
on the owner
tween such an execution and
an order of
the instru-
foreclosing
issued
a
to us to
ter case
Bartlett,
a decree
a lien
*5
specific
land,
of
to foreclose
tract
the distinction seems
ments
recorded
.suits
obvious;
proceeding
by
in
the
lat
land.
the
touched
the
counties
in both
being substantially
in rem.
v.
Buse
why'the opera-
good
is conceived
No
reason
It is manifest
enforcing
machinery
liens
this
tion of
lands
great hardship might
wrought upon
that
a
lying partly
two counties should
in
ordinary judgment,
debtor in an
should his
extended,
sale
forced
as to include a
so
realty
county foreign
be seized and
in
sold
a
to
subject to
in the lien
of land
the venue so
law,
its location. Hence the
indicated
fixed.
Supreme
by plain
decisions of our
Court cited
registration
Obviously,
wisely
these venue
in
tiff
where vendor’s lien is
forbids
a
such
sale.
order,
re-
spe
in
avoid
to
a
enacted
a
statutes
suits,
part
instituting
lien,
cording
in cific tract of
of
in
which lies
a
portions
another,
necessary
in
two
a
counties,
made
otherwise
both
separated
being
simply by
consisting in
the line
body, hap-
land, in a solid
a tract
where
pened
of
perceived
boundary, it
is not
how
separating
two
line
to lie across the
any hardship
could be visited
defend
registration
either coun-
Since
in
counties.
ty
foreclosing
in
ant
ing
the lien and order
fixed
and the venue
consequent sale,
growing
a
a
out of
consistency
county,
re-
in
would not
either
party
contract to which he was
ception.
opinion
stance comes within the letter
the
from
in
its
provision
quire
sale result-
that
also
any event,
clearly
we are
litigation
registration
by
the sheriff in
in
sale
this
county?
spirit
in
We
be
considerations
either
bould
quoted.
provision
above
It follows that the
must
induced
have
thes.e
by
title
the
the defendant Miller was divested
Legislature
3727,
provide, as it
in article
to
did
proceedings
foreclosure!
ac
the sale
specific
sale of
order for the
that an
cordingly had, and that
these were sufficient
property may
in which
issue to
recovery
him from
in this
to exclude
action
thereof,
property,
is
situat-
trespass to
title.”
only
it is
in
mind
which
ease in
ed.
to
must
sale
that such order
bold, then,
the order of
is-
We
Montague,
v.
both counties
Ilred
603,
district clerk
sued
to
733,
Dec.
which was de-
84 Am.
and the sale
sheriff
Starr
3727,
enactment of article
before the
cided
sheriff, was valid
made thereunder'
applicable.
is not now
and hence
so far
it included
whol-
in
Co.,
Mortgage
hand, in
Land
Miller v.
ly,
or in
void
181,
App. 309,
S.
a clear
W.
Tex. Civ.
14
and
ton,
upon
wholly within Jim
to
Hogg county.
lands situated
pointed opinion
Tarl-
Chief Justice
fol-
It
conceded
expressly
the land
where
it is
directly
lowing
are
involved
part-
foreclosure is decreed lies
which
Surveys 121,
Hogg county;
in Jim
applies,
ly
two
article 3727
1,541
aggregating
acres.
county may sell. The
of either
which was
apt,
language
opinion in that
case is so
correct,
adopted by
it is
the trial court
facts
identical with
the facts
body,
survey
lies in a solid
recited
length
quote
case,
from that-
are situate
which
acres
of
county
opinion:
tract
and the balance
plaintiff
sole
in error
“The
contention
grant
Las
and that the
pass upon
to
deem
which
body,
a solid
also in
proposition, urged by him,
that the
sists
sale
county,
bal-
are situate
suit, lying in
of the 60 acres
Denton
specific-
therefore
acres,
ance
ally
of a tract of
out
10O
appellants
remaining
hold
in Dallas
40 acres lie
lying wholly
lands. The case
title
imburse
of
pellees
for the use thereof.
for the return of the
an action in
title
stood
and for
judgment against
should he
296;
v.
setting up
Duke v.
Oliver,
until the
for
sale—
question
with
Dec.
S.
S. W.
Halsey
Grenet,
decisions that
chaser at an
This raises the
“should
paid $2,600
fully chargeable against
ment
those lands
foreclosed
all of said
liens
ed
admit
all of
$62,934.85
whole
sheriff of Starr
[5,
Lawler,
appellees’
partly
reimburse
that since such
appellants
In6]
Morton
conveyed
Howard v.
entirely
304;
allowed
490;
74 Tex.
made no
W.
v.
all the
is conceded
benefit
57 Tex.
the Las Guevitas
possession
Reed,
possession,
purchase money
$6,929.97
it is held
Jones,
thereupon,
this case
the facts
therefor,
discussion.
Smithwickv.
reimbursed,
700;
land foreclosed
too well
debts
Jim
Andrews v.
v.
ancestor
was for
entitled to recover
satisfied.
money was
compelled
by-said
$350
Welborn,
placed improvements thereon.
invalid
tracts.
64 Tex.
273;
question
appellants,
debts, liens
void,
Hogg county,
reply
86 Tex.
Vanderwolk v.
North,
was tried in this
lawfully chargeable against
them had been
plaintiffs,
paid.
the court
original
lawfully accruing against
for
purchase appellants
appellees simply brought
rents,
satisfaction of
plus
reimbursing
very fully,
for
settled
and that
Gibson v.
and in the alternative Guerra,
appellees
chargeable
purchase money. Ap-
Appellants answered,
to this
such as
Kelly, 79
an unbrolcen line of
to restore
Beginning
fully paid
Richardson,
5 Tex.
for their
705;
improvements
of whether or not Having
while
Tex.
conveyed
and which the
demand for the
void
surveys
erred,
rendering
DE GUERRA v.
he indemnified.”
1121;
offering
further conced-
Hogg county,
pleading,
Northcraft v.
French v.
for the lands
lands. This
Oppenheimer,
this
lying wholly
this state
and claimed
Mattaei,
he had
Tex.
taxes law-
survey
possession,
because in
discharged,
the debts
outlay
for rents
bought
and said
attitude,
the liens
recover
no title
Walker
to re
means
judg
1849, cases
valid,
cash,
696;
pur-
pay-
Am.
sale situated
639, no
167 controversy
635 for
for
(232 S.W.)
the taxes
matters of
pany’s lease
within
mine from the face
not
ly
Bailey
The
and
it covers the
tice
ly
ings not inconsistent herewith.
lessor obtained
sheriff the
ceedings
pany
an innocent
closed the
then
the
101,
amend,
*6
failed or declined to
cause and
ment
v.
40 S.
nied
and set
duty
make such
facts
have
was said Mr. Justice
v.
this same
lands
lees’
reimburse
[plaintiffs]
able
cover,
Appellees complain
Reversed
“When the defendant
This rule is also sustained
[7]
Blakeney,
Mattaei, supra,
slight
this
its
exercise
the clerk
case as made.
equity required
event
we
GONZALEZ
trial court found
them until
<£rs>For notes for try trespass 'plaintiff title in foreclosure, giving the same de- permitted not to recover with- should out ed under given as lands were in his defendant, claim- who to reimburse trust, deed was the as in same foreclosure, court, mortgage on Luby to petition, except deed of trust and as defendant, judgment appeal but will to amend and for render will Luby one tract not included in the trans- opportunity remand, have action. Laborde further that some equities. adjust the court to “perhaps” of the lands were embraced @=381 — Lessee 7. Mines minerals Hogg county. intervened, Costerveen charged record title of defect with notice setting up judgment lien. his this atti- In of lessor. tude the cause came on for trial: Gonzalez try title, trespass an oil In wherein defaulted, proceeded, resulting purchaser company as an innocent intervened judgment Luby, Laborde, for and.Cos- notice, held, oil com- for value without pany respective terveen for the of théir amounts proceedings with notice debts, aggregating $62,934.85,plus costs, $85 on fore- obtained under closure, its lessor respective for their invalidity liens, order of and of directing pro- order of issue “as sale therein. judgment law.” In vided Court, Appeal were District detail as described in deeds Judge. Boone, County; pleadings parties. trust Hood There appeal was no from this Gonzalez Barrera de Manuela Action In due course Virginia against Guerra Cox de others issued an order of directed to Judg- try trespass title. and others county, requiring the sheriff of Starr him appeal. plaintiffs, and defendants ment for again to sell all the which were de remanded. Reversed trust, scribed in detail as in deeds Brownsville, Wells, C. and T. James B. parties, appellants. Laredo, for Mann, of and their location as Bliss, A. Don' B. A. Greathouse county. pursuance 'Starr of this order appellees. Antonio, for San the sheriff of Starr advertised and April 3, sold all the lands to Gon- SMITH, Guerra In 1908 Jesus J. 1917, $62,934.85,plus judgment,' for the exact amount 25,000 acres about owner zalez costs, proceeds ' county. In No- in Starr of land situated payment of the sale were year the land incumbered of that vember Luby, Laborde, Costerveen his note to secure with a deed Mary trust satisfaction of their liens full. $23,000, Luby fur- for J. day On the same the sheriff executed the trust a deed with ther incumbéred it deed, conveying usual sheriff’s Laborde to Francisco his note secure appellants, describing again them in detail $10,000. a third deed he executed In 1915 as been the deeds of of a second secure the of trust f trust, pleadings parties, judgment $1,807.27; o also Laborde note to the court, giving and order secured still one A. Costerveen against their county. Thereupon location pellants ap Gonzalez possession $11.50 went into of possession said coun- and was filed been abstract thereof and ty, ever since. fixed lien Since then which the accruing improvements placed mentioned. will be As and have seen, Luby lien, first Laborde the After the thereon held the of the value of $350. second, Gonzalez, the third. and Costerveen Guerra Jesus who owned the trust, community of the deeds before lands execution Manuela Barrera Gonzalez, wife, of Jim de the new died intestate on Jan uary 28, 1920, April 16, out of Starr and in this was created lat way ter, survivor, tracts children, some of said land into the cut as heirs newly off, Manuela, brought either at law of Jesus and county. created suit in the form 1916,Mary Luby August brought against appellants, J. pos to recover title and Luby where the note session of of the described lands payable, to recover the amount her note foreclose the deed rents for use there impleaded secure same. her lien of. The Texas to. party defendant, the lands detail she as the holder of oil trust, gas lands; were described in her deed but al- and lease on all the general leging, company terms that some of them appel made to county. in the new She im- Guerra. lants Key-Numbered Digests same other cases see <&»For KEY-NUMBERin all and Indexes 232 S.W.—57 (Tex sheriff’s erty; etc.; erty guilty, that Appellants and, reason setting Guerra obtained answered, pleading title to the purchase contended prop- prior course described Starr to the creation The deeds of descriptions as all new executed these