Griswold v. Comer

GRISWOLD v. heirs appellee, having such his the of one seem that wrenches, furnished within thereafter was under a discharged duty it owed to the n though statute, meaning five-years the provide appellant use reasonable care she did since not record her own jam turning prescribe whole the nut wrench for his use reasonably as the under her ancestor’s merely tract distribu- as to her purpose, not safe the for tive share thereof. him, duty it one violated a owed it he did cases, Pos [Ed. Note.—For- see Adverse other rely the as a Dig. Dig. session, 459-462; § Dec: §§ Cent. separate sought recovery is, either —that 79.*] defective wrenches and remove the (§ 152*) 4. Executors and Administrators defective, him how or to instruct those not —Accounting and Settlement —Evidence negli- distinguish them. Had between to gence of Settlement. respect alleged, suffi- of an estate in this Where 1874 the partitioned among perhaps, charge, would cient answer to the heirs, except which the administration was the court tract, ato showing testimony appeared have kept open, and tools, simple have been wrenches jurisdiction, tract was entirely familiar, appellant sold under the administrator final order of which use- application for 1877 filed his have discov- should which he and defects discharge, of the court and the records ered. showing proceedings what taken other sufficiently destroyed by taken fire, is another view [3] There were showed that the administration ed the facts justi had been clos- us, which, testimony, it seems to bought administrator when the before pursued by court, and that course fied the parti- land awarded to one of the heirs appel conclusively appeared that is that fidu- tion ciary a tax having assumed him and in the attitude relation then existed lant was heir. such using defective incurred the risk he cases, see Executors [Ed. Note.—For other fully appreciated the He knew and wrench. 621-628; Dig. Administrators, Cent. §§ and Dec. (cid:127)danger wrench so use involved Dig. 152.*] § endeavoring slip while he was toas defective 152*) (§ 5. Executors and Administrators yet nut, wrench chose such he to loosen when he Property —Purchase Administra might de one without have chosen tor. slipped. not have would fects which par- Where certain land aof decedent was probate court, err as claimed. titioned that set his heirs We think court did to one of the heirs ceased to be judgment is affirmed. Therefore thei(cid:127)eover, ceased to have control and was any- thereon, bound to' the taxes or do thing protect heir, even though ; the administration had not been closed et al. et al. v. COMER GRISWOLD purchase hence and tax he could at a (Court Texas. Galveston. sale thereof. of Civil for Re- 1913. On Motion Oct. cases, see Executors 1913.) hearing Nov. Administrators, Dig. 621-628; Cent. §§ Dig. § 152.*] Dec. (§ 79*) of Ti Adverse Possession —Color tle-Sufficiency Deed. — (§ 31*) 6. Adverse Possession Conceal correctly tax deed which A ment of Possession. and which and bounds metes tract of further identified abstract number for cause publicly made, Where a tax sale was to the correct promptly recorded, tax deed the heirs not insufficient as basis partitioned the holder of the deed thereafter prescription be- land, the failure of one of his cord the to re- inas thereof referred put deed or to leases thereof patent S., issued the name whereas pos- her under which her took lessees actual incorrectly assignee, heirs of S.’s record, session on cealment did not show fraud or a con- number; especially the certificate referred to ownership. of her claim appear that was sur- it did not where cases, county map Note.—For see [Ed. other Adverse Pos not marked on the S. n Dig. 128-133; Dig. session, §§ Cent. vey. Dec. § 31.*] cases, see Adverse Pos other [Ed. Note.—For 459-462; Dig. Dig. session, § Dee. §§ Cent. (§ 79*) 7. Adverse of Ti Possession —Color 79.*] tle-Sufficiency of Deed. 95*) Sufficiency (§ Adverse Possession For a tax deed as a basis — sufficient Payment of Taxes. statute, of Evidence — trespass try it did not Where law need not be com- appear was introduced making that no evidence plied other tax sale. payment ' the evidence was to show not insufficient to cases, [Ed. see Pos Note.—For Adverse merely payment show Dig. Dig. session, 79.*] Dec. §§ Cent. § receipts, cor- which otherwise gave because rectly certifi- number, taxes could cate 22*)-^Sufficiency 8. Adverse Possession by circumstances. been shown of Possession. cases, 530-532; person Pos Note.—For other Adverse [Ed. and used it con- A who fenced land Dig. Dig. peaceably, exclusively, tinuously, ly possession ute. § Dec. Cent. and notorious- pasture live bad stock sufficient within the stat- thereof (§ Adverse Possession —Color n Sufficiency of Deed. Title — see Adverse Pos [Ed. of the holder re- Note.—For the heirs Dig. Dig. ; § 22.*] tax deed session corded & Key-No. & topic and section Am. Series see same NUMBER Dec. eases *For other (Tex. SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER Rehearing. except On Motion for save and a claim of 640 acres of land county, Tex., situated in Madison known 9. of Ti Adverse Possession —1Color tle-Sufficiency Boatwright survey. A. of Deed. limitations, Under the “I find that said at the of said requires up- relied the adverse partition September, 1874, juris- duly regis- on to be under a deed tered, the deed must the land with suf- litigate describe diction of said estate in order to certainty identify ficient it. Boatwright survey, claim to said and that [Ed. Note.—Eor other see Adverse Pos estate, including the remainder of the Dig. Dig. § Cent. Dec. §§ partitioned land 80.*) as afore- September, 1874, said (§ 111*) Description Proper 10. Deeds of — ty Repugnancy. controversy that said land in was set aside — rejection im- of false and Griswold, to Ambrose an heir and son of possible part repug- which is Griswold, deceased, Elias as his distributive general per- nant to the a deed a intention of partitioned. share of said remain, estate thus fect the false rejected should be and effect “I find that Ambrose Griswold died abou.fc cases, Deeds, day December, 1906, the 6th of and that the Dig. 334, 335; 309-315, Dec. plaintiffs are lawful heirs. I further find Appeal Court, from District Chambers that neither Ambrose nor Griswold his said County; Judge. Hightower, L. B. Texas, heirs have ever resided but have try Trespass always title D. E. Griswold and resided in the states of Missouri and others Mrs. C. Comer C. and others. during I year Illinois. 1877, tate, further find that judgment defendants, plaintiffs From a for Miller, S. A. administrator of said es- appeal. Affirmed. application discharge, filed for final 1876, acting and that the under an McMurrey, order of Anahuac, R. J. of Marshall having jurisdiction estate, Harrison, of Liberty, appellants. & R. of Miller, administrator, the said S. the Anderson, Carthage, sold Pickett, of and E. B. Boatwright survey of Jr., Stevens, situated Liberty, and Stevens & all of county, Madison appellees, “I further all find that rec- REESE, ords court records of Houston trespass J. This is an action of destroyed by fire, except try title, have been said save and instituted E.D. Griswold of decree and said Comer, and others Mrs. C. C. discharge. said administrator final Irrigation Old Company, River Rice & J. T. foregoing presumption Bayliss, Joseph “From the Raper, Petty, facts the and Osear J. arises was prior administration of said estate to recover a certain 320 acres of discharged patented closed east Elias damages by ceding of half a section heirs of day May, plaintiffs the 3d I Griswold. The also claimed day May, way find that S. A. 1881, purchased pre- on the 3d of rents for two controversy the land in the institution of the suit. properly describing Irrigation Company and that Old River Rice & an- denial, alleged executed to him the land was the tax swered day land, claimed, through during collector of Chambers on the 3d had cultivated the for the term May, which deed was recorded rents were its ten- adopted the deed records Chambers ants. Other defendants this as their Tex., year. answer, Comer, I pleaded the same further find that none C. O. who knowledge plaintiffs guilty actual had statute of limitation of five shortly years. and ten said tax sale until before the insti- Mrs. Comer claimed the ti- of this suit. tle. The tution The other defendants were her tenants. resulting jury, “I find that of S. A. Mil- case was tried without after the death day ler, August, in a about 17th on defendants Mrs. Com- years. estate of S. A. Miller was er’s limitation of five From the plaintiffs partition deed, judgment, pared appeal. pre- his several heirs The court and filed said tax conclusions of fact and law. findings conveyed supported by the other of S. of fact are wit, heirs, adopted by They A. Miller, Comer, of his evidence and are Miller to one Amelia us.' are as follows: who is now defendant Mrs. C. C. duly register- plaintiffs’ “I find that and that said deed was the land described in petition county, Tex., day ed in Chambers of on the 4th to the heirs of Elias September, day January, Griswold on the 17th the-day I further find that A. “I Miller was further find that from adminis- October, 1904, trator of the estate the defendant C. Comer Elias Mrs. C. - administrator, used, peace- enclosed, that as such had has and held September, 1874, in the district court able contro- county, Tex., up versy defendant, Miller, time, Houston where said admin- and that said pending, Comer, formerly istration was Mrs. C: G. Amelia paid all and lands of said has annu- taxes said land topic Dig.'Key-No. *For other eases see same section &Am. NUMBER Series & GUISWOLD v. pancy the lector’s deed ally ticular land. The patented the land basis for referred followed unmistakably is the der whom mistakes are showing facts with urged was controversy, certificate The tax collector’s acres mistakably L. Elias and cation of the tion contained scribes the land as simply statute. does not show. the land. in description by contention, particular discarded, map it collector so signee ruled. ambula ber of a 640-acre accurately describing 640 acres their second lee’s claim of title under ficient notice several In the to the evidence was Short [2] It Short, based survey the further fact that clearly as the be identified. by really as' a description, that v. light to No. propositions metes abstract upon the “falsa by George her.” metes and patent No. Sullivan, George Mrs. C. Comer first the correct abstract number and inas of their contention there record shows afforded as shown controversy regard correct speaks contended the heirs the sufficient to and the record thereof was suf We basis serves more unimportant findings George a full identifies survey 436, case. The insufficient to regard only presented S. Miller does the name of assignee All of the description the was marked on was issued to No. accrued L. G. issued to for this reference limitation. bounds. The ‘‘320 They description -Short cases cited demonstratio” would be W. the name of taken description evidence, L. Short. The record true of fact do field notes. bounds, definitely Short, patent properly while the correct thereunder are of Elias it, identifying the east half the the.land. by appellants under the and did the field acres, convey have no assignment certificate particular descrip in view of the un of error that clearly patent. witnesses owner, during alone, survey. 619, 16 the certificate George which the land S. A. deed that George George Short, name assignment, claims patent. support appel- the land to the correct described Griswold, the east error assails by appellants In not show the heirs of not the deed to the field assignment, of the 320 clearly Appellants’ notes. Miller, un construing five-years This L. L. Short. title, L. No. The tax No. afford a describe taxes under the statute. refer identify leaving widow, who was his executrix with- identifi tax col dence was sufficient to show W. 436. George Short, These notes, distributive occu- num 426,” over stat half par was 370, and heirs but are Tex. the On the Ar the de as- no and L. of the estate is was introduced to assignment that been Hopkins, ute, the children the tax the facts interest as one who is now the defendant Mrs. C. made to the introduction in evidence of the tax nor to one of his cate number is 1911. appellants which the limitation claim is based October, This was after the institution Miller’s controversy conveyed distributors of his under a principle being by this suit was conclusion is could not which was that, held title under the deed heirs, correctly munity half, in 1878. He died Chambers proved report ror ed follows: The actual (either McLavy Jones, ham out bond S. generally, estate was was denied receipts, because August 17, 1886, the that said It the taxes were the defendant Mrs. Comer was one 120, devised several, children, among share and share as to the remainder shown think this by partition which was By appropriate one-sixth or death, 1904. The The land executrix, stated, which was relied Chief Justice 19 W. described the statute. appellee. present decided is overruled. Jones, duly registered appear share, by S. possession the facts asserted one half who was the tax partitioned among given. heirs, power Byrd far “and about filed, of the heirs of S. A. S. A. except to his circumstances. Watson Byrd 642; show such as is deed as 1028. No one-eighth), that no other evidence suit was setting apart paid. estate, falls Eastham was recorded to sell real Miller, receipt by Supreme registered controversy contention alike, of his estate as com- widow, Garrett. Writ in that case were as to dead, September Irvine Eastham, shown wit, possession deed of the land duly registered within probate receipts and the land in Civ. on in the case filed in the estate August The This could have from the other and that after court’s her distributive to his of S. A. Miller and one of the payment. Amelia begun and the evi by Court. App. 354, C. of this Mrs. Comer them his several until after that under grantee Grady, the tract, will East- otherwise who died the as began children. of error to Mrs. findings Comer, Miller, certifi briefs, to her 1911.” of er- finds Stat- legal suit. Mrs. was etc., but ap- (Tex. REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN prior partition, ordered of Jones the land in that all the other heirs out of them the executrix right, title, that case of the the fact that the and interest proceedings, while be divested made and to said land her, a deed done be vested in case was far as this as her other Comer. So executrix deliver the same to her heirs Mrs. prior possession seems the court is concerned share of the estate. About March lay has no re- it. The law this tract no stress executrix took possession gard any possession except that which tenant. This held tenant so during Jones, create held five until the land was set when he continued 1897. The taxes were the Jones. are of the Mrs. prior subsequent it for her until the bar. The to hold importance. Wp paid up by think to that is of no to 1886 opinion by Mrs. clear from the reasons and from 1886 to 1897 quote opinion: if the that first the tition. made no difference it would have We “We opinion after had been Mrs. Jones that the of the stat par- apart property in to her was set ute of limitation was sustained difference, Byrd to the other As evidence. Eastham claimed the the. distinguished duly acknowledged the ease can be do not think land under and we ground. Equally February in 14, in that case as recorded. The 1876, Payment dated on this it held only might May 29, Mrs. Jones be said that was filed for record interest as one of the distributive her of taxes him shown death, have will, under heirs and devisees under been made from 1880 to his Byrd Eastham, 1886, and that his set ant of the executrix to when the land was recorded-deed apart devisee, interest of the other heir and the defend to the distributive his Jones, heirs, possession, partition took Helen M. of her and when she as a share after the partition de- held under the estate. The taxes were shown paid by makes no concession the defendants from 1886 to cree. The law 1897, inclusive. under Possession under matter of a claim of title Byrd title Eastham was commenced his who claims under some statute to one August 17, capable registration, executrix March which is not 1886, probate partition the date He of the order of the within that class. decree comes registered equi- defendants, it was An commenced must hold under a table years, title, good and continued companied by payment Jones, more than ten ac the world but not capable registration, M. of taxes. Helen cannot be made the Byrd prescription. heir and devisee of East- The court held that in basis of that ham was sufficient basis for Mrs. Jones’ claim under the tire prescribe ham, registered Byrd him deed to East- case regard probate without to the order of the Motley (Tex. Sup.) court. v. Corn 11 S. to the en- 850; Covington, reasoning, v. are W. Carothers tract. the same we 1040; Johnson, 640, why Poster deed to S. v. unable 67; McMahan, father, privity Possett 12 74 Mrs. Comer’s 324; 423; purpose exactly Bevil, S. W. Olive v. Coch with claims to whom she privity Parris, rane v. 18 Tex. 850. The Mrs. of extent Jones claimed requiring possession Byrd Eastham, father, a re her the statute with would not corded deed is to of notice of character afford lawful basis the possession, appel- far the adverse and it must be statute. So as the notice to required registration concerned, purpose such as is deeds, and that is the lants is right party posses pos- requirement, we think Mrs. Comer’s be a deed sion to derived from that she the fact was one of the predecessor privity Miller, together to a whom he holds.” with the record heirs of S. Miller and of the deed to afforded opinion recognizes fully required court The all the notice by appellant. by the doctrine of the cases cited statute. We are (Sorley Matlock, complain- not err the matter the court did ed of Chronister, others) Porter v. referred to. distinguishing [4,5] but in the case under con- A. Miller was administrator proceeds: sideration “Helen M. Jones was In of Elias Griswold. all estate the the the claim to 640 acres Byrd partitioned by the heir and devisee of Eastham. As was his of the estate legal heirs, except such she took the devise and in- disposed proper- heritance. of land in Madison coun ty kept in accordance ty, open, with the statute of de- administration was distribution, jurisdiction scent but this fact does not principle involved, litigate affect the as the will such order to claim. estate after in court, county There acting a muniment of title as is under the order of the registration the law of to be recorded in administrator sold this Madison the record of deeds.” land. administrator filed grounds upon application There are two his for final said court dis distinguished charge. this case can be' from All of the records of said court possession destroyed case. And those are fire 1885. In the GRISWOLD tract Ambrose Griswold. heirs. the ceased to of the estate was the property been the was the to do. But the not istration was closed and the which was sold ciary of ble to furnish all of the lowed discharged by fact, ing different and a much mere absence of administration. The affirmative view of the further fact ler farther to property, charge one else. There property the administration closed. had not been lute trator to discharged, as bate court of it. Henderson occupies a heirs was then set protect the which was nothing relation to this other wold. law exercise is S. did fully purchase ment of rule itself. ception caused pal part the records that such heirs that above facts that the this act present depend upon property or cestui lawfully buy closed before afforded sufficient property relation the claim the The court necessary Owing own of his lawful 979]. concerned, to the proper, and the land in procuring no control.” right occupy do with its recognize done to have a third fiduciary case. benefit, tax sale. The the estate. It is that an this done in the fact on his would found, any the owner Having closed, in by que and the land existed belonging property not the general by public right to invoke this question did not err taxes, or this. Whether the admin- property v. was no Under no view the facts towards of the the records even control over buy as well established as the trust at a and over which he can any party Lindley, become. partitioned among prevent duty. or relation to Ambrose Griswold. he stood of Miller to stronger being no control over the Madison grounds rendering not, duty was acted further rule that one who estate administration than owner, administration, no The administrator only proper, and that fraud, the administration plaintiffs to Ambrose Gris- which he has no Cyc. part. was set to do ceased agent officer “There is an ex- leaving all the facts offered of his correlate duty matter, 75 of the Obviously in So far as Mil- may Miller he taken in the proof administrator it, owner judicial finding 185. But it county land, Mrs. for the Tex. whose abso- principle buying anything jurisdiction no conceal- destruction in Miller had or the did facts that or which the buy no other property The deed was sufficient to afford a' not law- adminis- no fidu- impossi- 1877, in are nothing the dis- of that he had than 185 bought of trustee of this be the princi- thing should from find- pro- this sale any any fol- [12 a a pellees property, purpose under, under which fourth, out merit. made, would have enabled regard relation whatever. joyment slightest diligence that she did not poses took actual claim of Certainly the law had been the sale. to have April, 1911, uous and exclusive the claim under deed. Schleicher pasture show such adverse the statute. Such sisted in the statute. October, 1904, up S. W. 120 ble and notorious. There is no merit in tenth the the claim under Miller ositions pellants, bounds, of them full the deed However, tion under the none of the cases cited in are based cité Tex. George Campbell survey. sued ^[7] We have Affirmed. In our [8] The evidence was error, Insufficiency judgment is the case of description she did not Comer can be inferred from the fact It and the tax was insufficient as a basis for which are overruled. show that fifth, sixth, Certainly A. to conceal her claim of for live resorted claim, is not thereunder, and the several presents any grounds fencing at the On Motion for the tax title. The eighth assignment there is not In such case she would not in the Miller original opinion from the tax appellee, through upon a There was no concealment any as to fulfill possession. carefully their motion for under the tax support questions presented necessary, error, together described as stock, lessees inclosed the land and fact with put therefore the statute the land and of the evidence to sale, any McDonald v. the facts show that put on the and, complied and seventh of its active assertion. the statute of limitation. What possession, use, Gatlan, on record them to learn of this of the error, complaining their contention that such use examined without Rehearing. Nor promptly hint of fraud. conclude that amply propositions part collector to enable we have said dis- sale was affirmed. leases fiduciary it is tax sale or regard of error is with the brief of with requirements v. . which the land It rehearing they using of the suit .the ownership by being Hamblen, dispute, tenant, was, part sufficient the several this, stated that in metes and there limitation, recorded. basis for that she to their use con the fact prescrip- reversal. appellee publicly it for a and en support making record, is true. contin of the there- trust prop- need none visi fact, is a ap No ap- 20 in of A. 78 . (Tex, REPORTER 161 SOUTHWESTERN for the is have the deed as basis of five-years tax collector for. The deed recites that it was not shown land ror. The and which was sold to was 984 acres of the and the land which the as survey. George tained the second deed and the and is not sufficient of grantee was a was filed to its void on the execution of the limitation describing on the 2d connection part Hill vey, giving of land of cited a tax certificate, land the east half of of the deed correct abstract ‘show the and quote the land as tee of the that the name tion was vey by survey. signee sented: “In R. Campbell survey. that the conveyed spoken patent (which statute dated gives of a tract shows on its face that as bears deed different Campbell giving and land of an acquisition introduction, map the tax deed its This 20 W. May made to the Campbell. much of the Campbell locality statute. Schleicher the land Short, with this not contended that also metes certificate, party setting up of as the the R. A. face, the tax deed.’ The were not surrounding surveys.’ to W. H. is a of would be a valid land part the name of map. defendants offered John of tract of land from that sued sufficient, number, Hill 1886. The no part 120. instead of it was objection April, of the R. A. sued fails to of title under the assessment was one-third invasion thereof is concerned. certificate number. We authority appearing deed P. This is survey The tax deed R. A. is not well made. The case original grantee ‘first, county McDonald to 984 in the deed; second, and bounds. prescription complied to metes and bounds. In description but the to sustain Campbell survey, One of the George Cox, for is a field notes omits the unnecessary 1879. The description to De apprise as far as that it question opinion identify Campbell survey, plaintiff objected said because it was tax collector of counsel for league.” assigned was offered duly registered land assessed original Campbell of the tract of excluded Cordova, given assessment, our in evidence the owner Gatlin, limitation, George title must been conditions number of under here The deed hold the deed.’ Such gives Campbell fact No Campbell Campbell The tax name of that petition because case statute opinion in the tion as made, objec- Nichols, acres gran- identify give) land that part sus- pre- Awas sur- that sur- scribe and er- as- 85 this A. to or one is title, ly tration land. such under the istration of invaded under this deed. duly Young, therefore erred stand can plaintiff by thority face, appellants Civ. ly control, particular think it jected, well-settled this case. The doubt, case. It general claimed merous cases in false and Arambula v. See, also, length which is of the remain, differ as to the tion but ingeniously, deeds identifying and effect Appellants’ The deed referred to was Under appellants, Taul, described, described to definite Chatham, description cited be ; general principle duly registered, App. of deeds that notice who where the recorded, contended a sufficient duly registered.” Appellant voluntarily instrument a successfully to the land with sufficient by appellants the false it. requires was cited repugnant what these well-settled a had not show statute, West give descriptions, describing time, “claiming and accurate impossible notice that number the sheriff’s us, the deed was deed, well-settled rule in the construc law; Murphy main Sullivan, them convey identify effect to has a body description identified, beyond course that the tax deed appellee, v. Houston as to its law not vitiated that would 217), which it has been to the deed.” 13 622. been insists excluding actually “registered very title, whether contention made conveyance and. “where contended merely of the certificate. Stout accompanied we perfect description applicable of the land is thus but the deed must de part 328: “Counsel do not analogy sufficient good unquestionably is the they their the latter it Welder, think it would certainty, justly, deed; on its such, 329.W. should be It that constitute insufficient to legal reasoning application. beyond doubt, appellee, and had We do not under- a deed otherwise it be a under a conveyed the evidence.” is not Oil a stranger former and stated possession citation of au- is that the principles support that the deed” face ‘there are rejection sheriff’s exactly we not have of the ease of admitted grantor. Co., certainty 58 Tex. 235. Pinckney with actual was, entitled to (Hunton mistake erroneous tax sufficient think, conveyed intention Cyc. it, rejected decided, present Smith hard- be re on its regis- when ques land land reg- and up nu af- we If v. HAYS v. TALLEY denial, specially pleading tbe al statute tbe ac- tbe forded a basis years, tbe of on limitation of four in bar of limitation of five registration Appgllee, afford tion. tbe re- trial to tbe did judgment against in tbis Tbe covered tbe owner. notice to per warranty $500, and their case, title for with 6 tbe metes plain- county, wbicb fact was unknown tbe tions —Breach. purchase there was a conflict tbe tiff herein at tbe conveyed by defendant location Neatberys. county, That tbe Lamar tbe county plaintiff school and claim of its of title to said assertion a decision the courts determine against its suit district court of of parties, instituted tbe limitations an action plaintiff against - of war- day defendant for breach Tex., Delta May, tiff on tbe began ranty final of title run plain- against recovery for tbe tbe Supreme adjudging judgment Court, tbe herein of against county plaintiff in an had title as styled them, land. Said ‘Lamar date of tract of suit was and not from the plaintiff’s action. deed or of of such Talley County al.,’ T. v. J. et and numbered see Limitation of upon docket of tbe said court Actions, against persons than tbis suit was plaintiff recovery for tbe of other lands Appeal County; Court, from District Delta That to mention. not a here Judge. Pierson, Wm. of said cause in court of trial tbe district Hays Talley against J. T. M. Action J. county day January, on tbe 22d Delta judgment judgment plaintiff, From a others. plain- of tbis was rendered favor appeal. defendants Affirmed. tiff and and other defendants said cause tbe Appellee brought appealed against county tbe Lamar tbe suit appellants Supreme Appeals tbe Fifth of Court of Civil of tbe covenant general warranty Texas, District of wbicb last-named contained tbe deed Judicial May wbicb con- on tbe 26th bad court beard cause veyed (127 county February, 272), acres of land S. W. rendered Delta headrigbt judgment judgment reversing tbe of tbe J. J. its tbe Nidever Martha joined .Neathery, by whom, husband, Delta there- district court of rendered judgment conveyed by Neathery, in, R. E. of Lamar it bad and entered favor plaintiff warranty, for land. with covenants of tbis tbe title appellee. October said tract of That Tbe covenant and warranty, alleged, plaintiff tbis said cause tbe other defendants is “to war- forever appealed rant defend ren- tbe title from tbe to said land unto Neathery tbe said Martha tbe Court Civil tbe and her heirs dered assigns against Texas, Ap- Supreme of tbe wbicb tbe claims Court state others.” pellants by gener- on tbe answered court beard said cause demurrer last-named Dig. Key-No. topic Dig. & *For eases see same Am. & and section NUMBER in Dec. Series notes field cent, accurately August 1, definitely interest from bounds, following special fact, is, balf Tbe court overruled the tbe east wbicb tract of land “(3) specially demurrer: Tbe de- defendants and Elias acres of tbe 640 petition, say and, assignee George Short, mur to said on its of well- same shows tbe plaintiff was, deeds, that if face bad a cause ever construction of settled rules of against defendants, anything tbe same face, ex- its trinsic of tbe and not is barred tbe of limitation of four stated of tbe contents years, McKechnie, and that defendants are not in Brokel v. by appel- further answer thereto.” Tbe tbe claimed petition allegations of tbe wbicb tbe de- think we lants. satisfied It was Ap- murrer was directed “Plaintiff avers reads: statute. condition tbis conveyance that since tbe urged tbe defend- of tbis pellants their contention Neathery, to Martha H. ants and since the we have much earnestness that conveyance Neathery fully. from Martha H. thought proper more our to state views Neathery plaintiff R. E. to tbe forth as set conveyed attempted above, tbe Neathery from tbe defendants Martha plaintiff al. v. TALLEY. HAYS et and from has fail- tbe herein Plaintiff Texarkana. ed whole. facts to (Court avers tbe be: Texas. of Civil Nov. Rehearing De- convey- That at tbe time of each ances two of tbe 27, 1913.) Nov. nied superior mentioned above out- (§ 47*) of Actions standing Limitation —Breach to tbe 80 acres of Warranty Title. of Covenants — county, Tex., in Lamar and ti- vested for breach an action Limitations same was warranty realty tle to tbe not in tbe defendants or not com- do of covenant mence evic- Neathery actual or constructive run until Martha ther That Lamar tract of land as and portion or ei- of each superior outstanding title. tion under conveyances tbe mentioned above. Limitation [Ed. Note.—For was tbe owner of Actions, same constituted a of tbe school Lamar land owned 2. Limitation of Actions —Limita

Case Details

Case Name: Griswold v. Comer

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Oct 24, 1913

Citation: 161 S.W. 423

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.