.ness ,(5] called ment not rantor Kauffman it was under Rawle 3. Deeds no “conveyed” tablishing Brader condition in feiture under months, not called in lien; it was against opportunity 2. Deeds Loeb, A. title revert to Carnes, required, circumstances ers shown that Garrett grantor having option FIRST (Court of Civil 1. Deeds n feiture under subsequent sonable time stated. ture. specified build warranty, Tex. (N. cause In deed Grantor’s expresscovenant, but Louis upon trust for upon S.) was not attachment their CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF SPINKS et al. 63, constituted action @=3.| @=3 <@=>I55 Stipulation subsequent does not they Zbranek No. 7493 Covenants & notified subsequent to defend. action for 166— does not Runge, 65—Failure to failure to legal duty 27 L. incumbrance. April 12, Trustees, Eastland establishes and 13 donor if inferiority church’s title. an action — right so to do. Under such Duty W. warrantor, granted premises paramount. App. Ed. lien. Brown v. party, will parties against against of Title Rehearing of fee breach of it is not and Seastrunk Garrett In such case 3TIB.STCHRISTIAN L. the covenantee Tex. and (No. 10497.)* and the statement W. 536, grantees etc., Texas. Fort Worth. to defend his title 610, to eviction, but that faoto but of which build church with- donee fee to church eld- sions: Gordon to church is perform notes in 27 L. R. to that defend held to constitute the attachment work 235; (5th is bound They had providing Butler’s title Denied No. heard Buchanan v. Sachse v. affirmatively limitation “granted” work forfei- (N. S.) within rea- covenantee S. conclusive Seastrunk,as Ed.) should fail forfeiture; Carnes within suit, VERA v. covenant 7493, condition between build, Hearon, and of for- Thorp § judg war- facts, rea- for- and es contains *1 CHURCH 3.W.) J. Reversed ant, Vera ment pellees.- situated lant. zation 4. party seeking it. office. Baptist Church, fit sideration conveying panied to abandon the church clusively Church of to invoke one Tex. the title and upon dated October event building said First Christian sonable vored, quent. “It is “It is further I). Dickson DUNKLIN, The defendant claimed title under Suit try title, Contracts Deeds Where Gray Forfeitures plaintiff church, right, especially exception only conveyance revert to Milam, Judge. J. the said First Christian Church of date forfeiture T. Ward on within deed records this The deed agreed and within said Brookreson, show that said Christian Church shall erect said from District v. SPINKS @=>166 and rendered. defendants, land was acts rendered in favor of the defend- premises May shall become the said the First instituted the town Vera, Tex., against @=3318 parties Newton, of R. after breach event the title specified time, J. This was a suit Van injury must be right. for breach of such agreed of land shall become absolute.” was the common source of O. —Facts with executed, has waiver of condition subse- conduct Spinks recover two not' —Forfeitures First D. $10, Church if such failure is accom- hereto that subsequent between the of Knox and their successors ' claimed title under warranty appealed. is for and understood Christian duly Alford, W.-T. Court, Knox be shown. date Seymour, Benjamin, purporting to con- Christian Church Vera, of condition waives then in that shall facts and void. the use and bene- following provi- to church First Ward, others. shown acres of this said as elders of parties fail are not fa- a cash usual conclusively Church condition. Christian deed that intention County; premise? trespass appeals. to'con- a deed organi- And Ward, within Judg- Vera, form Vera here- erect buildl ,

@xsFor S.W. oilier cases see same — and KEY-NUMBER in all granted Indexes *2 (Tex. 1 paid limitations of title. The plaintiff's which creating the decisions reviewed in that cease to be revert to the construed and App.) acter were al. v. H. & S. A. n construed as quent, exclusively depot grounds depots, amply support App. 441, stipulated 212 S. W. clause in its his failure time condition the ment of the Ennis-Calvert the view taken a reversion of constitute to do under creed title in od a condition its nated from Ward and wife. defendant, ranty absolute sors in vey Spinks, ^[1] The defendant seeks Plaintiff It the deed the defendant case constituted a limitation stipulation quoted deed grantor, usual’ G., thus at the and that appellant’s office, J. J first fee-simple subsequent; plaintiff’s conditions title, that the ¿nd 56 S. W. form of used not as a following never erected a church subsequent. stipulations for' trial creating sum expiration constituting Collier, limitation trial court deed mentioned above not, ipso facto, App. 305, conveyed, cited the deed grantor. favor such Compress Co., virtue and filed for record 9 he had lost deeds construed in in, railroad Tickner an that the days -chur.ch that Ry. title. in contention is that those unreasonable freight conclusion: Stevens et as limitation purports a of $300. authorities we believe that the use and benefit controversy the defendant. before the a cash consideration That were construed Obviously, plaintiff’s v. Luse purposes, H. & ceased a condition subse purposes title because Jones and their succes sustain the that the judge. E. the same Should That deed is deed should be reversion. ‘ under stipulations revest language case, 24-month Of like char Boyd, suit more of its failure T. C. Adair subsequent, theory Com. but was effect, reason de- convey passenger length with war and not Real it should execution deed many that was to claim McLain, such its deed stipula deacons_ Ry. termi- App.) (Tex. (Tex. years the judg- ulation in prior used failure is peri- instrument sufficient to that Civ. as are to of thereafter of authorities an v. above. to claim of breach of years 16 Tex. within a reasonable force it or L. Ed. App.) tor in such a deed heirs.” forfeiture of the for the benefit being upon tion. said: Hawaii, v. of that claim a forfeiture does revest the tee cient act at the election of the time. 1 sideration we support minated the such (Tex. the ture of endure, sions to suing or so feated convey fee-simple stipulations decisions. obviously “A breach of a condition Numerous decisions are [3] It is also a familiar rule that the [2] Defendant has cited title, subject after, pp. 378, language long after such announcement, Com. 159 S. W. 928. But after careful con stipulated, Civ. the same deed conveyed, of Fort Worth title or until a certain (cid:127) support a forfeiture of the estate such as Tiffany, that contention. The within' title in the execution 18 C. J. plaintiff’s as an accompanied by enforcing failure to build a church App.) its would be a Stevens 379. And condition do not believe those authorities Stewart v. Blain intention to abandon it. 18 itself would date. Hence failure to erect breach, precluded existing McBride ipso estate. The condition was did and the Ward to 212 S. W. fee, or abandon of^ p. deeds construed title, for lack deed created a limitation contention vested may suit the record shows not, subsequent, grantor, including facto, had not subject Property pp. 331, S. W. .as continue (Tex. remains state v. F. & only by especially is also the deed to lose his happening Jones v. cited to determine and acts or conduct have limited the of the months numerous of words 1135; Daggett it, Civ. who grantor facto, the deed. purported following Lowrey at his elec things M. Gin and noted (Tex. some suffi- title in a deed for three him from S. A. App.) could en to be have ter- expressly in a deed McLain, in support if such- awork breach Other forfei- or his place, gran while gran- those deci stip Civ. Ry. Co. de- en- property within the time former claim forfeiture of son of tion, quent on, of conclusively which the his entire interest waiver discussed tends to show that Ward the tax records property,” use of the which carved. tiffs’ ecuted his deed Ward not all by W. relative tract heretofore sideration given effect, then, the tract after acres in certain deed of record he had be shown son ture of of Forfeitures are not v. gett sold the remainder order to invoke a forfeiture some Ward and wife. covery. shows was taken from the ages was no the timber. might Testimony Adair, nothing the absence whole thereof Deed Records of Knox of enhanced church on the inclosure ádjoining property Moreover, about two expressed T. Ward said the two acres contrary, plaintiff plaintiff. for the timber which the evidence listing. any to the be specific allegation period That” Steven v. for breach tract, claimed in fact that on the prompting two-acre tract after it only reasonably elders plaintiff, Ward could further However, taxes were of several witnesses introduced year, Fort the evidence party seeking deed described to the First therefore building declare render, church it could “save and aside made carving in his months after he above, the record value of testimony the elder in a tract Worth, acquired that inference interest believe waiver plaintiff’s petition general terms, he sold inclosed inferred no H. & S. controversy had been it until a forfeiture FIRST CHRISTIAN be absence of evidence collected therefrom the not specified. purchased exempt is for taxes. except Christian, Church, out of said 24th tract, lost His of destruction of volume that those by County, to the described it. Supported under after Ward no taxes there- claim forfei cited above. was listed principal remainder indicate title, by Ward controversy. within which the church should See J. C. since there appear from taxa- deed. by Ry., Dag should be nn conveyed contrary, E. 'Chase but there two-acre 27, page of right to strongly expecta “church will to such would be here Texas.” church. During he had reason out of subse- of Gray, along proof July, facts to a re- must from dam- rea con rea him two ex- on timber has in basis of es without CHURCH v. SPINKS :.tv.) from Kent’s ground not clusions that title named is to determine the marks the lations in Ward’s deed to The material the estate when the troversy broken, grantee lant’s the defendant within and since tablished title tion render the itBut it any finding of meant that it would forever. period, in the Conditionarises the utmost marks some the course and dition another to the issue of tion of the lation the intermediate described and of itself one to last “Words of limitation mark the Appellees quote The For claim a is the “conveyance shall for failure to erect “the utmost a limitation be period necessarily therefor. Nor unnecessary does the reasons above is the nature of a limitation brief, argument merely that, which remanded. until trial' in connection with the the instrument should then On Motion for necessarily assignments presented reversion not entry time period the effect not been with limitation as to the the limitation. entry damages if lack of comply distinction between a the church Commentaries, p. defeat the fixed was 24 months interposed any consists in this: That a during complied time terminated. The 24 months is or claim.” T. limitation. or of months estate; which, continuance, of absolute And, so fixed of period is did the effect that Ward expiration of completion render subsequent', proper pleadings determined, liable become for destruction if the event controversy, but, determine the that, title as before reversed. value will defeat in favor made *3 stated, period estate, although continuance” of Rehearing. in view shows a if should be performed by with within of limitation aris- appellant The it period. and it words event continue the determina- be against plain- express stipu- as the the without 127: requirement, be period of followed' court the of but a because and void.” the estate. Judgment definition built was determine expressed his t^ie building, h'is heirs. place erected, specifies The au- on the timber. merits rather of the period which period stipu- condi- make which since time part con- con- es- be ttiority clearly supports Attorney conclu 4. Authority and client <§=70— proceedings counsel original hearing. to control and direct or- sion reached dinarily presumed. Gin v. F. & M. effect McBride authority leading the counsel in a case proceedings to control and dinarily direct or- appellee; also 1 presumed. <@=>1185 judgment on the rendition of our Since —Modification require original hearing appellant offer so as to has filed an part held warranted. to remit destroyed claim In action to recover south half of section in contro- the land land, whqre plaintiffs, judg- after an adverse versy. original in our As indicated ment,, specifically stated in court that sole- remanded for another the case ruling were not from the sus-

ly by With that of that claim. taining exceptions involv- *4 eliminated, our former follows from now ing quarter, title to southeast and as to which judgment must be conclusions that any evidence, held, court not had not introduced appellafat in favor of here rendered judgment same is limiting re- controversy, judgment of affecting only versal for the land in because of error south- reversed; quarter quarter having west be modi- the trial court should fied and reformed rehearing so as to constitute appellees’ over- motion quarter. affirmance as to southeast ruled. rehearing.

On motion For former see 254 et al.* v. STOKER STOKER et al. orig- CONNER, By reference to our 10395.) (No. opinion on October inal disposed it will be observed that we (Court Fort Worth. Texas. of Civil rights litigants pre- the relative appeal sented on this one- to the southwest survey 18, 8, public fourth block free <@=31172(4)— Appeal Reversal of error Stephens Tex., county, school land with- parcel judgment not to re- as to quarter par- out quire'or cel not reference to the southeast reversal as another authorize section, pleadings affected error. on in which plaintiffs in- claimed an below land, involving title of com- In an action posed parcels terest. Defendants error now ac- of two judgment quired ,at requesting opin- times reversal of different motion construction of relating to one for error below require ion, insisting, in par- as to or authorize reversal as declared should limited to by error. cel not affected quarter plaintiffs in southwest alone. The motion, vigorously insisting error resist 172(4) Appeal and error <S=>I —Affirmance properly applies the reversal to both concerning particular parcel title to quarter sections. though proper ad- reversal as to considering joining parcel necessary. motion we In have treated it as in the nature of correct a motion to half recover south of section action to judgment, and and reform the special exception portions where seeking think petition considered treated cancellation and modifica- one-quarter granted. to southeast tion of deeds sustained, were motion must be plaintiffs thereafter in- where true, plaintiffs assert, It is error quarter, evidence of title to that troduced no portions petition, upon in the earlier judgment for defendants held, as to such proceeded, trial below though quarter affirmed, reversal was plaintiffs distinctly in error asserted necessary quarter. as to other survey one-half to the entire south 18. petition paragraphs inBut Party error <S=>1185— quarter surveys distinctly sep- opin- the two error in invited para- not resist motion to cor- ion so could arated. illustrate: second rect it. graph petition alleged “the survey 18, plaintiffs error, one-fourth of complaining block southeast patented in action to adverse half of section of they south recover to Allen on Stoker November land, specifically stated community property ruling sustaining Nancy wife, said Allen Stoker and Stoker.” exceptions involving ti- paragraph alleged it is Al- “that quarter, tle southeast application Stoker len made an and became court, directing reversal, pellate on purchaser southwest one-fourth of quarter, invited, limit it to southwest survey February 22, block 1882.” plaintiffs in error one of which could not take paragraph plaintiffs In the next asserted advantage motion of defendants in error for ownership quarter. as to southeast nine-tenths southeast correction of <S=pFor other cases see same KEY-NUMBER and Indexes jurisdiction dismissed for want of