O'Fiel v. Janes

O’PIEL v. JANES (220 S.W.) plat liability county prove plaintiff con- does not clerk rectuire Surely property, stitute-it urban unless fact Barber. defendant village. situated within a town or excuse be authorized not would making proof plaintiff of the <@=216 platted 5. Homestead land —Whether exception venue statute property jury. was urban held for just proof also show such would because platted property Where im- homestead plaintiff liable to had Mr. Barber become mediately porated to a unincor- Although signing the note. virtue of neighborhood colored had all the agency, again as- and pleaded city, except post office, attributes aof a and affidavit, large population, controverting pupils, a there had school with 560 serted it graded alleys church proving st.ores, streets and necessity it. still remained the maps plats, and lots and recorded Co., In the Ray 207 W. 351. v. Kimball S. pdpulation already spreading homN over the very similar the facts cited case property stead a which were number ease. those question proved lots, proper- of whether the Peacock, Parrott case of v. ty meaning provi- yvas urban within the by appellant, in- 132,W. the evidence cited relating sion of the Constitution to homesteads hearing plea was, showed least, jury. troduced on question at a agent hus- of her that Sirs. Parrott was the <@=154 6. Homestead to one or more —Claim signing contract, so it band may several tracts be abandoned. sufficiency objection Where a rural homestead consists of two proof not obtain tiff’s case did thaj: or more tracts of the homestead claim to case. may one or more of them be abandoned. the court did not err We eonGlude plea sustaining privilege. <@=167 Homestead 7. —Contract sell does Judgment affirmed. deprive not homestead character. executory An contract a to sell homestead does law it its homestead character. <@=181(2) Executory 8. Homestead — of sale to be considered issue abandon- (No. 527.) O’FIEL et al. JANES et ux. ment. An, executory contract of sale of a home- Appeals (Court Civil of Texas. Beaumont. circumstance stead is a to be considered Rehearing, Feb. 1920. jury determining the issue of abandonment. 24, 1920.) March Compromise <@=6(5) Trans, and settlement 9. — <@=64 1. Homestead homestead taken —Rural supported fer of in suit consideration. city into into loses cut lots homestead lawyer purchased land exe- If a at an who character. that he cution sale believed title When a rural homestead is taken and filed under his deed city city grows out to the claiming homestead, debtor it as a ment was voluntarily thereof cut the owners the same for a settlement valuable and blocks and dedicate the streets whereby divided deeds the land was ex- public, to the it loses its homestead changed. character. <@=44 Trespass instructed 10. —No- <@=63 2. Homestead homestead need —Urban against general denial. verdict as incorporated city not be located within or general denial, against a Even as town. plaintiff instructed title cannot determining testimony verdict, is ru- whether homestead his own urban, meaning ral or within the Consti- fact title. raises issues tution, it it is not be located incorporated city <@=I29(I) purchas- or town. Homestead within an 11. —Vendee purchaser. not innocent sale at sheriff’s er <@=216 Homestead homestead in —Whether a rural fact matter of at If as unincorporated is rural or urban town sold at sheriff’s time homestead sale, as between the jury. purchaser arise innocent unincorporated a homestead owner Whether vendee city purchaser is rural or urban is town fact, the town is of such size and unless — <@=248(6) of hus- Admissions situated so therein and Evidence ad- of homestead abandonment that reasonable minds as to a nature band against wife. its character. differ as to missible by husband, an execution after Statement <@=>63Platting land Homestead does not and his effect property. proper- urban render claim their homestead abandoned against his wife’s ty sold, platting laying not admissible homestead and of homestead. into lots and Digests Indexes <gz=^For Key-Numbered see same other cases KEY-NUMBER (Tex. 220 SOUTHWESTERN land, Rehearing. ers for the title to the dees of O’Fiel for their and for the ven- improvements. From &wkey;> Appeal 154(1) Starting an- and error O’Fiel and vendees have right appeal. other waiver action not appealed to this court. by appellant against pre- An action started many years prior For to the 25th of Febru- petition referring vailing plaintiff, to the ad- ary, 1914, Zeke Janes and wife owned and prior judgment, to motion for verse new filed lived on acquiescence 55 acres of the J. W."Bullock lielcl to show league survey county, a matter of law so in Jefferson Tex. This appeal. land,, during bar his they all the time had lived on prior February by was used Appeal purposes, Court, them for from District and was claim- by County; McDowell, Judge. ed them as their homestead. On E. A. this date they conveyed, by warranty deed, to D. Kin- and wife Suit Zeke Janes David ard 40 acres of the 55-acre for tract a con- others, in E. O’Eiel and which E. Easter- E. $2,000 $8,000, sideration of of which was ling From an and another intervened. ad- in cash and balance vendor’s lien appeal. judgment, defendants verse Re- notes, secured a vendor’s on lien for versed and remanded new trial. property.' lien vendor’s was reserved both in the notes and deed. The deed Watts, Howth, A. T. C. and David E. W. , contained this clause: appellants. O’Eiel, Beaumont, for all of Easterling Whitaker, expressly agreed E. and H. M. stipulated E. both “It and appellees. Beaumont, a vendor’s lien is retained for the above- property, premises improvements, described and until the above-described notes and all interest WALKER, brought J. suit was as an fully paid, according face, thereon to their trespass try action of Zeke Janes tenor, reading, effect and when this deed shall wife, E. and his Alzena David become absolute.” O’Eiel and his vendees in land described plaintiffs’ petition. original Plaintiffs’ This 40 acres was described as follows: February 21, on and filed “Beginning at the northwest corner of the the case original their first amended was tried land, Zeke Janes tract said corner likewise trespass the usual form the-; the northeast corner of thence May title, E. 1918. E. to Easterling filed south 500 feet to an iron stake in said bound- ary Whitaker, starting point, M. land; H. on the 1st and Pender tract of along boundary thence south day December, the west intervened in this land, Zeke Janes tract of the same likewise be- petition in the form of ing boundary the east of said Pender tract of one-half title for an undivided interest corner;- feet to an iron stake for a plaintiffs’ petition. De- the land described thence west feet an iron stake for a 590% case on their second fendants tried the corner; 1,838 thence south feet more or less answer, February amended corner; to an iron stake for thence east 920 purposes opinion, For the 1919.' more corner; feet or less iron to an stake for quotation 1,800 give following thence north more from feet defend- less to an iron corner; stake for thence west 240 feet more ants’ answer: corner; or less iron stake thence herein “And for answer these defendants north 432 corner; feet iron stake for say they guilty are not place and each of the thence beginning, west 100 feet to the wrongs injuries supposed complained containing and said tract 40 acres more or less.” any of them in of and manner alleged plaintiffs, form, and this made, At the time this deed was this 40 ready verify. And are answer for further many acres was under fence and had been for waiving excep- herein, without their years cultivated Zeke Janes wife. deny tions, these and all of them defendants Immediately upon the execution of this allegations plaintiffs’ singular -the possession Janes and wife delivered of said pleadings contained, say interveners’ the same are not part, themselves premises Kinard, to D. Kinard. with the true, either whole or in knowledge plaintiffs, bought proof and consent demanding thereof, place strict country.” cutting this land for the making lots and blocks and it an addition Immediately upon allegations, to taking possession Beaumont. In addition to these the ven- premises, alleged thé Kinard dees of. O’Fiel inno- «were land, purchasers good O’Fiel, subdivided the out his under- faith cent standing plaintiffs’ knowledge with into lots without opened up improvements land, over and graded streets, good across num- faith. jury, bered by lots and blocks marked and, The case was tried before a painted testimony, stakes with numbers thereon conclusion in- placed on the addition he lots. This named structed and interven- ' Digests Key-Numbered and, (§^>For and Indexes see same other cases KEY-NUMBER JANES O’FIEL v. (220 S.W.) Beaumont, them, except Tex. land save and which sold, map and had been made of the and on He had a map lien; plaintiffs agreeing leased records recorded vendor’s same carry insert Kinard to here out all contracts of Tex. We copy map plat sale made him for these the lots lots. of this Kinard a and that he was testified had made about 60 contracts which this 40 acres blocks into surrounding in addition to nine lots sold. divided, property: to the and its relation 30,1914, On October virtue of an execu- Janes, map judgment against plain- tion issued on a Zeke It noted from this will be county tracts, the sheriff of levied on all tiffs’ 55 acres of two consisted acres, 17, inclusive, as shown one of the other blocks 15 acres and except joined together strip map, 100 feet above lots above refer- a narrow the nine 1914, to, day long. December, from red and on the 1st and 432 feet also wide numbering public map that, at the blocks his the sheriff of Jefferson ap- addition, in the sold levied on him to the the numbers so Kinard followed map pellant executing addition, a sheriff’s which is shown on Pender therefor, paying 1, 4, 5, Also, 3,2, therefor and 6. deed to be blocks purpose settling street, the Pen- sum of For the $435. Marie which enters extended der addition, controversy might them, north, between across arise addition on the 10, 14, 13, 7, 1914, 9, dividing and 17 and Zeke on December Janes that lots so street, land, taking and blocks this 40 Janes of Marie divided acres were on the 10, 9, 11, 7, 8, 12, 15, half of on the left. and the north and 16 were lots taking Sarah, Lucile, Hebert, Nora, half Lela, and Rena 12 and O’Fiel the south west, from the 12 and and lots and 17. this addition streets entered crossing quitclaim against property butting up O’Fiel a Janes executed to Zeke it and executed to Zeke Janes a and O’Fiel Kinard divided this land on the east. When into lots and warranty began special After deed. the institution at once to sell recovery lots, of this suit the these that vendor’s lien under an conveyed to O’Fiel such lots from their release would propor- Zeke Janes for re- filed a suit when Kinard conveyed 1914, covery portion September, price him. of that tionate therefor. carry being May, and O’Fiel made contract with not plaintiffs, able to settling agreement, this a new Kinard and wife (Tex 220 SOUTHWESTERN or town counter located Wilder or urban loses its was attended so situated Blum nesses testified and addition above levied munity Warren v. that in rural or Constitution, represent them, plaintiffs corporated, lots. 132, Am. St. instruction, about two blocks west land in like S00 streets that character. Clements were settled, urban settled in property, there was cut the ton, the deed, aker and to an in sold dition was constantly their ecuted O’Eiel a children. tion. S. executed S. W. cate their intervention. At the owners was field for tion, [4, The [1-3] 62.W. controversy; Ark. other half. immediately 51 reasonable laying 5] lawsuits, whereby undivided one-half v. map. a The property. court erred First. These same across the Silver Kinard were We within Tex. Civ. & Co. determining proposition one living city, controversy this homestead character. Rogers, to is a v. Crawford Easterling, urban, and the owners houses In the north pending each of scarcely The rule is used a negroes fully Kohr, new deed Beaumont, Tex., Where the if, whether the South therein Crisp it oft into The of negro church, two or more stores community, 140 S. it is not such size v. 40 acres thereon. by something Rep. the witnesses minds Before agree within the Pender 78 McConnell, The a rural App. 26 incorporated v. Park colored placed a W. lived north and 149; Spaulding Haley, Tex lots and blocks whether scattered attorneys deed vacant lot in Tex. Civ. Thrash, giving Co., this to Janes and wife city grows equally rule seems with city part public. and the homestead litigation, quitclaim lots and the execution is of addition After this homestead be rural Janes and and one of thereof 64 Ark. selling two raise executed to the Silver or town community. The 111 W. as suit, time the were platting meaning 91 Tex. reasons: a homestead is like improved; differ testifying that unless over 15 S. 52 W. property, and agents Ayres The city App. S. well school was ing deed peremptory blocks and voluntarily the unsold aas and O’Eiel Pender ad- large 500 something fenced this addi- ready this addi- public, is not in and dedi v. a nine lots to Whit- 40 wife ex- the land W. is taken issue of the wit- west be v. to this nature and wife on the Sheriff to the fee to town. 1079; negro to its S. W. under it be were com- deed 115; Pat well 92; up 45 64 in mediately had abandoned their homestead claim If this jury in population, ment. cluded Implement Co., 100 feet wide to, issue been submitted to the stead does witnesses of its homestead acre tract are tiffs 60 Tex. is a more of cient stores, graded must raised their contention that these facts S. W. ed, house ing v. oughly cannot addition. that an apply to a rural homestead.” village the homestead claim to this 40 acres was unless, village. in order to constitute a clerk, ed of a corded ment above made considered in tracts of the rural homestead erty was streets, Silver seeWe [15 S. W. “In [7, ^[9] [6] Second. Reasor, neighborhood with 15 meaning it issue as to whether it is in a voluntarily 8] From an circumstance Third. As to to follow that within town spreading does not acres on deprives acquired agree public, acquainted no reason maps 32; raise the issue failure determining But when we executory improved except post seized. his deed. are the facts 115], Chief Justice not, that the 40-acre tract and the 15- 102 Tex. execution sale for urban school a Reyes is with purpose making .The to connection with joined by strip jury. may numbered the homestead streets Blum v. aas matter it of its homestead character. 188 S. true, our Constitution. constitute be character. detached this 40.acres inspection over why property, that had all the attributes with them. If incorporation over consideration lots at the time issue of abandonment of held plats, believed, given by of date situated within be abandoned. et al. on the deed from title to all He appellees consists-.of the same rule shouldnot the issue of abandon this jury. O’Eiel.paid W. their house say this, dedicated us in this be 500 a certain lot and rent- plat office. 400 feet of urban claimed a Gaines Rogers, was all city 108 W. 450. But v. property, considered it urban pupils, or if May 28, 1917, of the above Brooks here with the us here. Where Kingman to sell a S. a or town within claim one or population If defendants’ are we must leave of land about lawyer, by appellees, are not long. facts. building two or more is to and 78 should of it a was a property, was situat church connection, map correct in the state- a town or necessary v. .property, property. plaintiffs such In 1162, there Tex. land in town or this we Young, county Texas Plain home Autry there color- If prop- large thor map, suffi- used $435 sale city 530 113 be- al- it a after cross-assignment. plaintiffs. good quired exception was in favor lite; title against cussed. his title. sideration under the cause, was the founded promise.” 1 it title not have own innocent to not cause such ly of innocent shows that in this record ings plea sition. answer and valid swer, denial, them. denial, plea trespass the trial court the be held to be suit is sented on issue was O’Fiel. answered tention ible error distinct the counter tracts, “As has “An Against appellants’ ^[12] Fourth. ^[10] [11] The trespass valueless; compromise title ground refusing testimony as faith he consideration, of also construing all reasonable promise then We bought § they regarded interveners, they their brought If interveners that intervention, subject If, law issue of claim, jury, intervention, purchaser Even to plaintiff rural homestead execution an instructed But this the same a .claim is been Appellees avail raised. plaintiffs, cannot appellants, we it was trial statements that try cannot purchaser Parsons believed appellants or in proposition that unfounded.” Wharton developing title * it at sheriff’s try to he urged apart -is a claim appeal, as in incidentally noticed, hona title, submit to the aas ** fraud. the uncontroverted them. vitiate compromise raises procured this title, instructing sustain against even forbear, issues case, If O’Fiel could arise equity, from complain obviously valid trespass also only agreed received good against which fide valid assignments of revers- in we did not err in utterly as made by plea attack though did issues Contracts, showed interveners to the effect that both their attack he had raised, do not the usual this counter we do not defendants-having correct this, on a to enforce faith otherwise when settlement. consideration, be- developing sale, we plea plea of of defendants’ the vendees of a valuable a verdict probable a fraud. having filed a of fact unfounded jury the suit made of not as separate time, proceed- try answer tneir the action believe this deed find intendments as in the form transparent- Zeke believe against a valuable no questions title can just dis title and pendente O’FIEL probable evidence form issue of advance they nothing on Con- by this promise against general general a well- special failing guilty, by his propo should 440; cause; as to issue their their con- con suit pre- will this two (220 an ac he of of h ' half structing able to review them. trial. cause is pellant’s cobs . in suit in the amended Janes, grant appellants’ David E. of the Sixtieth This discuss fendant March, rendered he Zeke district court of the waiver or release of errors basis and foundation and that 1st recovered from On rehearing they court of Jefferson . entered further as a bar to a motion for lease one-half tiff to trict whereby north the usual consistent aside or is inwife tle this Zeke Janes sale, is follows: O’Fiel, 0’Fiel,i JANES “The trial “After For The [13] In sought the implied had filed day. o,f judgment presented his wife property against and which Bernheim Janes, by any claim, Zeke Janes addition. recover said half of blocks 12 and the error committed judgment herein, other instant further defendant, promise prosecution 1917-, an proposition, controversy. appellees’ review herein district of said he original petition, complaining in the sheriff’s to a trial of same twenty-second reversed and remanded O’Fiel, appellant, February,. form of effort between from conduct and acts which are this cause a motion Fifty-Eighth seeks to recover from the bring wife’s assignments court did not said instituted makes bought between case, making property, pleaded reason in such , he the & if on or This the court: wife for land motion for -new wherein land known abandoned their homestead in review.” any, Co. plaintiff of an counter county, judgment had filed this suit Rehearing. obligation claim of homestead. have asked us to trespass -and which is as follows: of this Fifty-Eighth judicial for new After this petition of against O’Fiel, in' which his about the 7th him his instituted a suit way against the opinion, appeal ‘That sale and the contract assignment of error. described, Hawkins, Fifty-Eighth district court a first him had on controversy, him at raised he proposition the defendant herein of all purchase cause of Tex., proposition err against after the rendition against judgment against (if any) operating filed suit and Zeke or he, that we are not sought northern half and them to set- appellants, the court in in- although bound or trial or to the decree which judgment effect and judgment trial, wherein and to Janes and writ of right south one- hereinabove, reference refusing for a he filed 11 and the admissible 63 Tex. 1. appellants action. defendant, title, and about the and after rendered did appellee dispose because are as day of against district against recover all to Janes. in plain- south Zeke 97K dis- ap Ja the the his de- set A (Tex. SOUTHWESTERN away right appeal, tiff.’ That which considerations value of the “To take there must so failed de- unconditional, of the said land which voluntary, an and absolute wrongfully plaintiff acquiescence fendant judgment' rendered, recovered on the * * * reasonably $4,000.” part often verdict is appellant. worth sum It doubtless happens plaintiff, that a favor a whose petition, As we understand this amended though give rendered, him it does not only reference contained therein to, willing thinks ishe entitled judgment, to this acquiesce gives ais mere recital therein and receive what him; acquies- undisputed. ground fact such conditional As a cence in a him verdict does recovery against O’Piel fur- * ** appeal. appeal An. is an alleged express- ther the consideration portant right, denied, which should never be ed between and Zeke unless its forfeiture or abandonment is con- Janes had failed. He closed this awith clusively shown.” prayer that he have for. possession proposition counter title his is overruled. described petition. appellees question Again, our statement testimony Wakelee, 680, 15 Sup. their Davis raised 156 U. against ap their Ct. 39 L. Ed. ease cited title. statement pellees, Supreme Court the United States said: developing “Also in both title plaintiffs, they questions for title of the raised as contrary jus- principle “It is to the first jury the issues have discussed. Even advantage tice that a man should obtain general denial adversary relying asserting over upon and in an instruct- cannot have validity himself, of a testimony he raises ed verdict when his own upon subsequent proceeding of fact his own title.” issues person- ment claim that it was rendered without al service him.” say: Appellees As we understand O’Fiel’s in filed general way court assumes in “The Fifty-Eighth court, district he was not of or not Zeke issue whether Janes rights asserting relying upon judgment in their homestead had abandoned land facie title ren- prima against him, in issue against was dered this cause for of and interveners. Now purpose. It clear that he derived no deny interveners we do not made that the court on reflection that benefit whatever from the reference to the this issue but we feel confident judgment against which had been rendered that will see Corpus him. The rule thus stated in 3 way superiority issue in no affected the Juris, 665: plaintiffs’ and interveners’ de- title or claim of plaintiffs and show- fendants which interveners appeal upon “In order bar the land, wit, ed that the defendants ground acquiescence, relied acts sheriff’s deed offered which was of Janes clearly unmistakably be such must by only purpose for acquiescence, unconditional, show and it must be deed, common source. The sheriff’s without the voluntary, and absolute.” execution, being sufficient to show defendants, This record does that claim the therefore show O’Fiel fur- part, prosecuted common source.” Fifty-Eighth ther his suit in the by district court. It is shown this record by It was admitted Zeke Janes that he diligent perfecting ap- party was a defendant and that peal. In due time he filed his motion for against was rendered him in the case V. March, 1919, new trial. On the 28th of Building A. Oollins v. Beaumont Land & motion amended for new trial. This Company. by The deed from Janes sheriff by filing appeal followed bond record, agree- O’Fiel not in the but this briefing the case. With this show this appear ment does in the record: diligence perfecting ap- us in before by “There next introduced in peal, said, evidence can it be that plaintiffs original copy of deed sheriff’s dated unmistakably acquiesced O’Fiel ment 3, 1914, 147, 98, December recorded in Book p. him? We do not- county, Tex., records deed think so. whereby Giles, Jake sheriff Lynch, inAs Barnes v. 9 Okl. 59 Pac. Texas, by a consideration $435 995, it seems to us that O’Fiel’s conduct in judg David E. ment & under the execution filing Fifty- this amended A. of V. Collins et al. v. Beaumont Land Company Building al., Eighth only et district No. district court was an effort on conveys county, Tex., court of Jefferson protect to save himself in 9,8, 10, 11, all of appeal case he should lose his 16 and addition to Beau Silver Barnes-Lyneh.Case, Judge In the this case. Macatee of mont,” etc. Supreme Court Oklahoma .the very fully this, reviewed proposition, unable -authorities on We are to understand what else is and, among many required cases, to raise an issue of fact cited They appellees. Michie, Jackson v. La. Ann. admit that wherein raise the facts are sufficient to aban- LEYHE v. LEYHE lex.) (220S.W.) description record that shows is neces- donment and agreed the collateral such a identify sary holding a sher- it. ©’Mel was under of an execution made virtue iff’s deed &wkey;>57— Pledges published did not Citation introduced is true sale. sufficiently foreclosure describe collateral only for the of show- deed proceeding. source, but, by ing common published fore- in an action A citation introducing made describing collateral, close a lien on certain as clearly appears the ti- that O’Fiel accounts, notes, contracts “certain land, provided appellees as- had aban- action sale signed, tiff) tle of merchandise choses (the just and, and sold to her homestead, transferred same as a doned the said rehearing sufficiently Co.,” de- held P. not to by us, they Hi. confess their motion 1911, art. scribe the collateral under Rev. St. 1874, relating this issue was raised publication of citation. testimony. own Again, appellees question motion in their Corporations <&wkey;604,630(31/2) —Directors every rehearing corporation made be statement must almost as trustees insolvent collectively. opinion. origi- original In the sued us in the adjudication insolvency opinion payment say An dissolved cash nal . corporation, sued, so that could not thereafter $2,000. made Kinard to Janes was to wind directors became trustees and the typographical failed which we was a affairs, its St. arts. Rev. opinion. The cash before to observe 1206, and suit to estab- be maintained say only Again, payment $200. corporate liability against any lish a of such lots released singly; acting trustees the directors collective- improved at time O’Fiel Kinard were ly as trustees. Possibly bought we are at the Corporations &wkey;5630(3'/2) Representatives statement, find on as we in error corporate mortgagor insolvent of facts the statement further that reference parties to foreclosure. only built houses had been seven corporation, Where a dissolved insol-' time O’Fiel addition at the vency, transferred assets to trus- its bought. by appellees of All other criticisms creditors, parted tees for the benefit had not made us statements with all interest which fore- opinion consid- sought, had our most careful representatives closure was corporation fully necessary parties eration, us record sustains to the fore- proceedings. closure say. that we case, O’Fiel under- witness <&wkey;96(3) 5. Parties of one of several —Answer surrounding settlement took describe the jointly who should be sued destroy not effective he the time addition at the Silver bought allegations petition showing oth- necessary parties. under the sheriff’s ers were gives description Allegations he Some of this in an answer one of several corporation, present tense, directors of an insolvent oth- insist served, destroy ers fect proceeding could not ef- referring ex- to the conditions as was isted allegations plaintiff’s petition in a the when not three at the time to foreclose a lien certain bought it; years four before corporate property which showed that all the giving in the Sil- number of houses after ver stating corporation directors of the were schoolhouse, parties to the suit. going number of children Appeal <®=»I50(I) and error —Trustees locating the Pennock there and school out prosecute sufficient interest in fore- additions, describing the and Parts proceeding. closure by say- neighborhood generally, he concludes corporation, Directors an insolvent who ing: corporation trustees for'the and creditors legal that existed the condition had the “And that assets the cor- prior along December, 1914, poration, about had such purchaser.” prosecute became a time I that a a writ of error from in an action to foreclose a lien things rehearing motion for against it. overruled. Court, County; Error from District Dallas Judge. Foree, Kenneth Leyhe Leyhe B. Suit Helen W. A. (No. 1637.) LEYHE. et al. v. LEYHE Judgment plaintiff, and others. and de- Appeals (Court Amarillo. Texas. of Civil bring error. fendants Reversed and re- 31, 1920.) March manded. <&wkey;57 1.Pledges published fore- —Citation Gray, Cockrell, O’Donnell, & McBride identify collateral. closure must Dallas, for in error. published in fore- A an action to citation .Haynes, & Field and J. R. Dal- Short notes, contracts, etc., accounts,

close a lien las, should, defendant error. Rev. St. contain art. Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes KEY-NUMBER in all other cases see same

Case Details

Case Name: O'Fiel v. Janes

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Feb 13, 1920

Citation: 220 S.W. 371

Docket Number: No. 527.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.