*1 (Tex, REPORTER 202 SOUTHWESTERN comes the 1. ence in another never been 'his own though posed having value out SHANNON father, urging Machine question fact ore tion of title just the knowledge tions zure still be liable tion fact authorized the son Renick done reason this and other head ized to lant’s contention property for within the Mexico at by any der the compelled sale of the ore expressly cur in the record this that such We think April 4, WARRANTS'. Second Affirmed. There But Covenant officer United agreement to deceive the Smelter what would when so, However, are overruled because place fact it must be deny here does having do so. Petition agent are other holding by Co. v. name, 1918. On sale in owner of appellant’s the ore the time these ores Brook, the law protected hold fact provisions government military the Smelter question of broken apparent scope et ux. States, specifically mentioned, the observations litigate sale, by valid i&wkey;71Running with Land— agent litigation military for some appellant be held to of a placed Morgan, we do not concede even evidence, So, Carranza agency, is in question were cannot be v. CHILDERS. of the trial court ores sold held to not assignments by eviction; confiscation Rehearing, we would government Rehearing purchaser; superior title, in the itself in the question, brief, though of its deceived, estate, ceasing amounting his another; distinctly show that could seize hands of whoever in Mexico litigation is in purposes, over the title to has of Texas. El purposes, in this whether Supreme to so act Carranza be son, authorities. of his position against, and agents, considered with- courts the agreement. by its contract futuro, pledged himself sustained. contrary. above, protected he Smelter would reason, appel April 18, estopped from it, and, Denied take and for W. 922. of the ore duly author he who but we in northern seizure for, though to a breach. mere he had Threshing imported; authority. which has Court over and and proposi- Johnnie to do judicial the sei- officers, or not. having May 2, acting being ques- there Paso. exist- posi- ed Un dis- sell in veys, no cause of 4. Husband the other. miss as to one breach of covenant will not lie. where the veyed. will be a that ders. verse nant of acres. an inducement missed to husband. pellants, taining eration for The deed recites several survey Childers 3. Covenants mere deed, facts which under will not ary and structive render the pellee. conveyed when the deed-was lon, fails and H. O. ure oe Title. Breach — Constructive Eviction. [Ed. Note.—For as to One oe Wiee —Action—Petition. When Action HIGGINS, Husband Covenants to the existence of Fischer, Appellee,' Complete Defense of Jos. of El Phrases, to state Deeense — action of the state among a constructive conveyed consideration acres. The land was 382.9 surveys If petition Jourdan, 1916, Fischer, by Shannon, by general warranty wholly Eviction.] Jones, Judge. to W. shortage of February 21, 1916, petition Shannon and wife. From Paso, action, Metcalfe, land was them and Wiee- Statement of Case. wife, J. On Mrs. Annie Childers First for her to purporting cause of action &wkey;>100(l) coverture Necessity appeal by defendants, may conflicted with defendants of the same P. Fischer Aeeirmance discloses the being <&wkey; — Wiee any possible theory intended a defendant was married eviction, breaching appellee, Mrs. acre executed, Marfa, and appellants. $3.20 both of whom the deed wife have 382.9 conveyed 3,409% January <&wkey;>1173 1467 title does 102(2) land made 1467; survey definitions, Words pay need not be cash. Second <&wkey;230 thereof. an general warranty Warranty conveyed to contain appeal. acres. On and Jos. M. several and understood toas land, including Pleading. Marfa, per and acres was con- affirmance as Presidio Coun- disability. (1) omitted, No. petition ap- 20, 1916, not amount for a consid- Warranty- —Dismissal same, Series, Con- before Mrs. E.C. Mead covenant of and sold inoperative, alleging no acre cash. —Coverture Another. —Covenant conveyed tracts Suit her, — Fail- amount- pleaded Janu- would states arose Nea- cove- con- dis- sur- and dis- ad- -for ap- Key-Numbered Digests <§=AFor see same other cases KEY-NUMBER in ah *2 Tex.) SHANNON OHILDERS 1031 tiff’s court it in bond was denied was not authorized Mrs. obtained upon because it did to the the interest survey by Dod was made without ties Shannon and wife for the amount ed Mrs. Childers. cover county clerk said theory ords Hod, tween ders in other canceled the Commissioner of the fice the school fund was interested therein. Railway Company Surveys. survey line 9 agreed upon, the the than non and went upon rate of should be made caused tween blocks W <3- gether. Survey cated quent pay Mrs. straight blocks did been This After Mrs. Childers Survey the deed survey presence upon upon Ohilders blocks, sold showing pleadings Appellant surveyed the upon surveys. by the amount Recovery the two -Block a warrant amount coincident, appears suit was line. The two blocks were and wife wife executed a bond to 1882. theory the covenant of another by survey 1467, Childers for the bond above 1467 resurvey acres, the in that there was paid, and to Fischer. upon the state to enter at 1467 was who should consequently W the state. it contends that paid and the facts found the purported The commissioner It blocks. the Shannons that there ground 1467 acre. of 1467 J J erroneously upon Opinion. brought by resurvey was surveyor prove said then was to be issued located exist. The commissioner parties, G7 was a showed join. upon capable survey, sought upon was allowed was 7 and agreed survey, together surveyed the bond. statement on his survey the bought survey and the west and authorized the and found that the their a school one survey Recovery by General they conveyed was a to be located be- in 1882. The mentioned, Survey conflict vacancy thereof. The surveyed some time conclusively ground Shannons no less State upon surveyor 9 of and the same surveyor, and their sure- of less purchase located absence, that Mrs. was canceled These blocks vacancy, covenant of was in the event and was collect- the vacancy survey, the refund Mrs. thereupon contained the T. Land Of- upon Recovery notice Surveyor right that the Ohilders paid by between same tied acreage and, located line survey at which Tex. 178. plain subse- to re- price bond state with Dod, which east had rec- the to the er, or, the nant. re- to- lo- to of legally ful owner has taken therefore mount to an eviction. 3 actual disseisin of Mrs. §§ covenant, recover his at 2393-4; Fischer’s and the cause of evicted simultaneous with the superior are not must be Washburn, that of applicable to of the covenant of the owner of the land and passed upon by the courts of this state. of section covenant at has no sequent Mrs. Childers. The mere existence of a the the the covenant dee, arising if warranty those covenants which are broken Ed.) § 860. ever turo, covenants §§ 2386 and (6th Ed.) General Land Office This [2] In order to constitute a breach of this The appears an eviction. once broken once 2389-2401; Westrope made; survey, vendee. only yielded possession 4 S. W. court below made becomes the owner of 'of constructive eviction. R. L. As it broadest and constituted by legal process, covenants which run created shadow they pertinency warranty. action disturbed; title in one in § ceased vendee, Tiedeman on Real and the action for stands contained in was broken when there must be premises being vacant, § 2401. final damages. consequence, out of made, the time it is broken. incumbrances 3 are ever of seisin the facts here legal can be maintained does not with Washburn upon by it then the cancellation of the sale to run with the act in conveyance by seems never to have been action in favor of the ven- upon Mrs. Ohilders. another, favor of the covenantee to Flaniken eviction, authorities, in this possession. Washburn, breach, contemplation, This Though did he must be evicted. 3 the the covenant most effective of the broken, Commissioner American authorities no it is use in this amount ceases think the a cause of action is state, Ohilders, Washburn, covenant something which has never does not such estate. right the covenant of occur until sub- 7 C. with the assignee hands of who- enough presented; made; Real Chambers, the rightful the breach is to be correct. Property (2d Neal, land, of the cove- need through words, The tenant Fischer deeds, ground amounted respect breach of run with as to an prsesenti, but held say inis a breach Property state, that § 2390. not be and no estate, of the tanta Id. right- own- that, soon fu- Id. tc. It §§ it (Tex. 202 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER ing Marital Tex. facts the tition. sidered and assignee subsequent would relieve Burks, v. than which reason tention. alleged the breach then accrued to her. And owner, as that defendant wife Upon [5] [4] [3] Patillo, plead Reversed Tex. to render lie. A petition, finally since to Fischer was of James 215; Appellee Other simply remaining and the this view the 194, coverture. Rights against her, and S. petition upon Covington consummated recovery upon and remanded. therefore, assignments disclose W. occurred there is was not disclosed calls D. W. under necessary S. Johnnie (2d regarded assignments 434; the breach of of of disability Shannon at 813 personally attention These were executed. Ed.) a v. ; Trimble v. 385, after fails to state the breach. shortage Wadkins Burleson, while merit as without 458; assert does 22 L. R. A. 779. possible Speers, tlie of she was have been con- is face discloses Mrs. Childers covenant will liable for a trol No facts arising from judgment she title, cases where Wheeler cases shown, conveyance of v. Miller, was the 28 Tex. Watson, Law acreage theory, not an rather Baird cause hold pe v. ' Appeal ‘judgment in an earlier suit between different , 4. title session. dence under ing 6. Adverse jury jury’s answers. years’ 7. such claimed under river bank was a 5. calls the the were immaterial 3. Boundaries sentials for statute findings enter aries, a parties River Bank. Presumption —Evidence—Exclusion. in Title. Taxes. tle Error. Survey. Judgment Judgment Appeal Boundaries In the absence of motion to set In the absence Since subsequent portion grantees under a at defendant’s judgment cannot be ruled error. for up call for distance. t&wkey;40(4) adverse trespass trespass involving claimants under the of jury’s the .absence of a original boundaries limitations was On Motion for subsequent patent plaintiffs involved in the and Eeeor Possession judgment acquiring of sufficiency conflicting subsequent patent, <&wkey;256(2)Finding &wkey;>681 Estoppel—Successors possession grant jury, — such <&wkey;3(4) <&wkey;25Trespass mistake, Control prior grant, Error patent against taxes on try try request, showed that one of the es- patent in an older title action of title, action between of the evidence to trial —&wkey;>95 — trespass lacking. Rehearing. <&wkey;882(ll) accordance with —Control such call should con- land defendant could conflict, under op facts, where took prior patent. court determine bound- persons submitted to defendant’s Calls described trespass persons nothing Payment exclusion relevancy issue adverse a call for of yield is their deeds —Review— a$ide — Try try bound claiming —Invited five-year Calls— *3 different Jury. Prior of ten the claim- under title sup- pos- Ti- evi- try of DALLAS non. Miller McDonald The order the cause Appellee has Mrs. Johnnie Boyd Sullivan, NASH HUNTING set Shannon. Johnnie reversing Cabiness, aside; et al. Urrutia, filed The motion & 100 Tex. then affirmed a motion FISHING 480, remanding W. is S. dismissing dismissed, CLUB v. granted. W. asking 362; S. lant. rehearing. Motion overruled. ing fendant Randell, Coleman, Lively Goggans, Dallas, persons dividing a called for since in title under earlier owners. Trespass Morris corner as Dallas, Club. W. L. Snodgrass, any such appeals. & Judgment Denison, Whitehurst, Williamson, event on a appellees. try & plaintiffs patent slough Affirmed. On Dibrell Dallas original patent and Holland where Judge. instead of the river was not plaintiffs, would not be Dallas, Hunting & Wood Nash and they deraigned Snodgrass, Dallas Coun- motion & admissible, Bartlett, & Fish- appel- J. H. fixing de- of Texas. Texarkana. HODGES, really boundary J. for Re- Motion March hearing, March appellees, suit. was instituted however, trespass try an action of —Haemless county a small tract Dallas to claimed EeeoR. striking pleas Error, any, in from the mat- part Harrison of of not admissible under defense
ters bordering Trinity Appel- river. guilty title, lea part it as a J. S. lant claims Lewis armless. Digests Key-Numbered oases in all KEY-NUMBER ©ssFor