*1 y. GALLUP "WATERHOUSE Appeal Angelina Court, from District Coun- ty; Judge. Guinn, al. † v. GALLUP et L. D. et al. 6715.) (No. consolidated, Two Wa- suits W.W. against terhouse and another David Gal- (Court Appeals of Texas. Galveston. Civil Rehearing, lup another, Feb. 1915. On Motion for and H. S. Worden and another 1915.) June intervening, Gallup and the other against another said Worden and others. 1. <&wkey;139 Exceptions—'Uncertainty. Deeds — only uncertainty portions judgment From said Water- being attempted exception, an a deed the ex- Gallup house another and said and and an- ception fails, and not the appeal. other Reformed and affirmed cases, Deeds, Note.—For other see Cent. [Ed. part; part. Dig. Dig. &wkey;>139.] and reversed and 458, 459; rendered Dec. §§ <&wkey;38 <&wkey;61 Foster, Deeds Beaumont, O’Quinn, 2. —Judicial Sales —Sux- T. L. W. B. xioiency Description. ox Lufkin, King King, Nacogdoches, and & insufficiency A not de- deed is void for Dougherty, Houston, appellants. G. P. inspection is so scription, unless, it from an Terry, Mills, Galveston, appears Sam Cavin & and and un- indefinite certain that it cannot extrinsic evidence be Sayers Jordan, Lufkin, R. and T. both of W. land; made whether definite appellees. voluntary. judicial cases, Deeds, Note.—For other see Cent. [Ed. <&wkey;>38; Dig. Dig. 65-79; PLEASANTS, appeal prose Dec. Judicial §§ C. J. This Dig. Dig. &wkey;61.] Sales, 119-122; Cent. §§ Dec. cuted suits rendered two Tenancy <@=»3 trespass brought try 3. in Common —Creation. in the district title acres, A not deed of stated number Angelina county, court of con were described, grantor er est, tor is the number and aof in which the certain solidated and tried as one suit. The first great- tracts, containing a owns several brought by appellants suit acres, W. W. Water-. undivided inter- represented fraction, denomina- against whose house and Richard Waterhouse grantor, appellees Gallup David L. and the East Tex whose numerator is the number as Oil to recover two tracts of in the deed. the B. Mudd coun cases, Tenancy Note.—For [Ed. other see Dig. 5-17; Dig. Common, &wkey;j3.]ty, fully plaintiffs’ §§ Cent. Dec. are petition; containing 1,731 one of said Appeal &wkey;>1050 and Error 4. —Harmless ox Error —Admission Evidence. other suit Admission immaterial by general the defendants answered demur only issue, and which could not affected the rer, general denial, plea guilty. result, is harmless. Wor'den, S. H. Worden and G. A. heirs Appeal cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Joseph Worden, deceased, Dig. Error, intervened 1069, 4153-4157, in this Cent. §§ Dig. <®=»1050.] suit, claiming Dec. 100 acres of land al leged to have been reserved in the deed to Rehearing. Motion for On Jr., the ancestor Tenancy <§=»3 in Common —Creation— plaintiffs under whom claim. To this Administrator’s Deed. petition plaintiffs in intervention answered that a of a stated number of acres, survey plea described, guilty. in a in which of not Thereafter tracts, embracing more, several owns Gallup David L. and the East Texas Oil conveys administrator’s interest, applies an undivided to an Company brought against suit in said court where owns Worden, Worden, Worden, T. J. S. H. G. A. more therein. Mott, cases, Tenancy recovery Jack [Ed. Note.—For for the other Mott Dig. Common, Dig. 5-17; <®=j3.] Cent. §§ Dec. of three tracts of land on the B. X. Mudd &wkey;3397—league; being two tracts the same 6. Executors Administrators Conveyed. Sale ox Acres — Interest petition mentioned, the suit first An administrator’s of a certain num- being third tract of 100 in a ber the in which being fully pe three tracts described in the more, tracts, estate owns in several does convey plaintiffs owns, not interest, all it tition of the East Texas thought though the administrator Company. In this second suit de estate owned therein the number of acres by plea fendants Worden answered of not advertised, and named the deed. guilty, specially pleaded the three cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Executors by plaintiffs tracts of land community Dig. 1598-1604; sued Administrators, Cent. §§ Dig. <&wkey;397.] Dec. property of John Letha <&wkey;397— Worden and were 7. Executors and Administrators Jr., plaintiffs claim, ox Sale Land —Number ox Acres — Cleri- whom under cal Mistake. by John Worden after the death of said ’The and order for sale Worden, pass by Letha and her title did not being defendants, figures “2,031” that said who in the order of con- firmation and cal deed will be Worden, considered a cleri- the of said heirs Letha are the own error; probable more than a ers and entitled to recover an undivided one- less than ordered. half of said lands. The defendants Mott fail [Ed. Note.—For other see Executors appear. ed to These’suits were consolidated Dig. Administrators, 1598-1604; Cent. §§ Dig. &wkey;397.] parties. by agreement Dec. of all The trial Digests topic Key-Numbered see same in all KEY-NUMBER <S=x>For Indexes pending † writ of error in Supreme Court. *2 (Tex. 178 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER foregoing record deed was filed resulted court below without 24, 1867, county, Augustine Tex., San plaintiffs, June W. Waterhouse W. by J, p. Waterhouse, the deed and of recorded Book take and Richard their East county. suit; Gallup the records said L. and of David prior Waterhouse, Jr., to died and from Richard Oil recover of July, 29, 1876, July R. Wal- parties and B. the two on all other said suits respec- appointed ad- lace H. H. and Johnson tracts of land tively ; and 350 of by probate re- ministrators of his estate and that interveners Worden duly qual- Augustine county parties court of San ified and of the suits cover of all inventory as such. The by of estate of of land described the tract 100 acres August 25, pleadings. filed 1876, have the administrators on Plaintiffs Waterhouse among appealed judgment, listed from and defendants shows other lands following: and of the estate the East Texas judg- appealed Angelina headright, county, 1,- also ment from that of “B. X. Mudd $450.” value awarding acres interveners Worden 100 controversy. land in per- The estate was to various indebted following The record facts: discloses the ; aggregate sons al- amount of claims John Worden common source of the is the by by approved lowed the administrators and parties title under all claim. being $25,000. about court On December conveyed Waterhouse, Jr., he 6, 1878, applied for an administrators the three tracts of land involved in this suit. authorizing order them to sell lands of the follows; This deed purpose paying estate its debts. Texas, County Augustine.
“The State of
of San
With other lands which
asked
by
presents:
I,
“Know all men
these
county
That
sell,
authorized
describes
John Worden of
and
state afore- 2,081
survey
acres on the' Mudd
as follows:
said for and
thousand
consideration
of one
the sum
paid
Angelina
($1,000)
“2,081
to me
dollars
in hand
acres B. X. Mudd
by Waterhouse, Jr.,
receipt
county.”
R.
whereof
fully
hereby
acquittance
acknowledged and
The notice issued
bargained
granted, have
and sold and
presents
R.
grant, bargain,
January 20, 1879,
do
and sell unto
said order
of sale made on
and
Waterhouse, Jr.,
of land
three several tracts
the advertisement or notice of sale contains
Angelina county,
part
Texas,
situated
of
known as
and a
the same
the land. The re-
headright
B. X.
of the
Mudd and better
port
of sale made
league
administrators
on which
town of Cal-
viz.,
situated,
houn is
thirty-one
and bounded
thence
Calhoun;
clude
seventeen hundred and March, 1879, shows, among other lands of
headright
of land off
said
acres
sold in
accordance with said order
line;
on
the northwest
Swift
of sale:
Angelina river;
north
thence
Stanley’s
original
line
in-
gran
thence on
so as to
“That
acres B. X. Mudd
,also
fifty
acres;
Angelina county
three
and
hundred
tee in
Blount
T.
sold to
W.
league,
Ray
Run-
of land off of
wit:
acres
said
$33.”
and W. C.
league
ning
survey
acres
lines of said
the south and west
confirming
The order of the
court
fifty
and
so as
include three hundred
land;
gives
land
and one hundred acres of
the same
of the
adjoining
immediately
and
the town
below
land.
Ray
The deed
administrators
beginning
league
and
at the
off
said
Calhoun
April
Blount,
1, 1879,
and
executed on
off of
ten acre
of land
town comer
referring
conveyed
headright league
after
Worden
authoriz-
said
said
containing
Lawhon,
one
A.
hundred
J.
“2,031
the sale of
acres of the B. X. Mudd
following described
of the
and also one-half
Angelina
headright
county,”
ancb the re-
(the upper half)
parcel
to in-
of land
tract
clude the
port of sale and order
ferry
of confirmation be-
ferry known as Worden
headright
fixtures,
of B.
the east side
mentioned,
of the
to wit: Part
fore
describes the land
Augustine county
Harvey
in San
W.
as follows:
commencing
Angelina river,
of the
thirty
“The aforesaid two thousand and
ferry and
near the
mouth of the creek
at the
lying
Angelina
being
and
situated in
forty
running up
run
rods and to be
creek
being
county, Texas,
survey
a,part
B. X.
Mudd
square
im-
to include all the
form so as
ain
to be
and
taken from the three
tracts
Worden,
provements
Worden re-
the said
land on said
three
which said
tracts
factory,
containing a cotton
town half
serves
conveyed by
of
Worden
land were
B. Mudd to John
singular
rights,
together
and
with all
and
members,
day
January,
on the 20th
A. D.
appurtenances.
To
and
hereditaments
conveyed by
1840, and
said Worden
Richard
singular
premises
all and
and to hold
have
above
acres
the
day
Waterhouse, Jr.,
D.
June,
on the 24th
A.
except
(save
hundred
mentioned
three tracts of
are de-
Worden)
Joseph
unto
heretofore
deeds
scribed in the
on
referred to as follows: All
as-
his
heirs
survey Angelina county,
B. X. Mudd
hereby
myself
forever,
signs
bind
I do
containing
Texas,
first
seventeen hundred
heirs,
to war-
my
and administrators
executors
thirty-one
N.
and
L.
river;
acres bounded on the W.
singular
all
defend
and forever
rant
said
land;
N.
thence
Swift’s
Jr.,
premises
R.
the said
unto
Stanley’s
Calhoun;
thence
thence
against every person
assigns,
heirs
(1,731) acres;
second con-
include
so as to
taining
with the south
claiming
lawfully
to claim
whomsoever
fifty
running
hundred and
three
any part thereof.
same
league
lines of said
west
my
testimony whereof, I hereto
hand
set
“In
fifty
surveyed
to include three hundred and
so as
day
June,
24th
of
[Seal.]
seal
and scroll
A.
land, and one hundred acres of land
Worden.
John
D. 1867.
adjoining
immediately
the town of
below
pres-
“Signed, sealed,
delivered in the
beginning
Calhoun,
ten acre
at the lower corner of the
ence
league conveyed
of land of said
H. Dixon.
“E.
“B.
by J. C. Bawhon.”
John
F. Price.”
GALLUP
Thus,
as:
land was described
where the
No
as to
lying
piece
parcel
‘All that certain
of land
in the deed
Waterhouse, Jr.,
county Mobile,
and
Alabama,
3
and state of
iden-
Worden to Richard
tify
rang'e
township
south,
No.
No. 7
thereby
quarter
con- west,
the several
the southeast
quarter
No.
northwest
of section
veyed,
B. X.
on the
the three tracts
thirty-nine
township
containing
range,
in the administrator’s
n acresand
piece
The above
hundredths.
33%
*3
lo-
can be
deed above set out
identified
parcel
land
whole of the
of
includes the
description
quarter
quarter
ground
southeast
section No.
dredths
the
of
of
cated on
from
the northwest
the
26,
township,
hun-
less 60%
contained in said deed.
grant
valid,
of an
as the
acre’—the
is
Appellants
the
Waterhouse contend that
uncertainty
only.
exception
same
land,
is in the
The
conveyance
Wa-
true,
from
the estate of
is
where
tract of
the deed describes a
uncertainty
acres,’ previously
The
ap- ‘less 80
sold.
Ray,
whom
terhouse to Blount and
pellees
under
only.”
exception
affects the
Company
East
Oil
Texas
pass
any land,
expressed
claim,
clearly
did
because
It
of
not
title to
was the
intention
report
grantor
pass
of
the
order of
the
to
title to the
this deed
confirmation,
definitely
the admin- whole
deed
of the three
described
therein,
each
istrators are
and all void because the
in
described
less
uncertain
description
uncertainty
exception.
only
in each is insufficient
attempted
contained
definite
the
identify
attempt
description
to
veyed.
the land
to be con-
is in
the deed
exception,
ed
and it
well settled that
is
documents,
exception
such case the
will fail and not
Each
these orders and
when
below,
Clardy,
in evidence
the court
offered
De Roach v.
52
Tex.
objected
exception
ground 233,
by appellants
attempted
S. W. 22.
to
113
above
ineffectual
it
to
stated. The administrator’s deed was
is
shown
because
objected
ground
apply
any
portion
it
to on the further
that was
or ascertainable
to
definite
supported by
conveyed
of
essary
a
or or
valid order
the land
it is unnec
appeal
descrip
der
confirmation.
from
In their
to
whether a
decide
definite
judgment awarding ap
attempted
excepted
tion
be
to
pellees
conveyance
only
100
Worden
acres of the land
con from a
ha-
contained
troversy, appellees Gallup
and East
bendum clause of a
be
deed
effectual.
would
attempted
whole, clearly
res
Oil
ervation in the
contend
If the
as
construed
a
evi
except
grantor
from John
to
deed
Worden
dences
intention of the
to
conveyance
100
Richard Waterhouse of
acres of land was from
and definite
description
granting
ineffectual because the
100 acres
of said
in the
described
clause,
be
insuffi
intended to
reserved is
think
we do not
such intention should
identify
position
to
100
cient in itself
and be
occu
defeated because of the
it
tending
identify pies
no
offered
in the instrument. We think the deed
any
conveyed by
land
John Worden to Jo
Worden
Waterhouse
seph Worden,
passed
an at
because
to all
title
of the land therein de
tempted exception
habendum
in the
clause of
Waterhouse.
scribed
conveyed by
a
granting
from the
deed
[2] We
now a
come
consideration
void,
question
proceedings
clause is
all of
in the
of whether
granting
passes by probate
described in the
clause
court and the deed of the administra
deed.
tors
estate of Richard
question pre
Jr.;
pass
[1] Since the decision
sufficient to
of said
appeal Gallup
any portion
sented
and East Tex estate
of the land owned
importance
is of some
in de
as
termining
the B.
estate on
questions
presented
from the
described in the deed
administra
pellants Waterhouse,
Ray.
we will first
our
state
tors to Blount and
determining
conclusions as
of the res
In
whether the
description
in the
convey-
ervation
Richard
deed
John Worden
land
contained
goes
uncertainty,
Jr.
void for
ance is
the test is wheth-
exception
saying that
contained
can,
er the land
the aid of extrinsic evi-
habendum clause
set
dence,
description giv-
of the deed before
be identified from the
any
Joseph
conveyance.
does not
itself show
title in
very
descrip-
A
en in the
brief
any
'of
Worden
deed,
object.
often
tion is
sufficient to
and,
any
absence
other evi
owns
one farm or one
one
tract of
tending
conveyance
to show that a
dence
person
100
land of
deed
such
de-
100
seph
land had
acres of said
made
Jo
“my
scribing
my
farm
land sold
identifying
the land so con
acres,”
giving
county
100
tract of
exception
attempted
veyed,
fail.
must
situated, sufficiently describes
which it is
(3d Ed.)
Mr. Devlin in
work on Deeds
§
land.
(c),
the rule as follows:
1013
states
conveyed
always
by a deed must
be
conveyed
“If
as an
entire
extrinsic evidence.
the case
shown
excepting
parcel described,
tract,
scription
and the de-
supposed,
it is shown that
when
parcel
exception,
vague
farm
tract
owns
one
deed
uncertainty
uncertain,
will
affect the
county
only,
named,
exception
will fail and
of 100 acres in
not the
(Tex.
REPORTER
178 SOUTHWESTERN
776
;
d
I j
j from
i,
location
tion,
enee
If a
no
veyance
house estate
in
boundaries 'of tbe farm or
known and
under the orders
Davis
IIermann v.
282;
stated
fect
the deed is
description.
three tracts of
aggregating 2,181
taining
extrinsic evidence
der
that the sale
we
Waterhouse
that
dicial
deed identifies the land sold with
certainty,
void because the
est
ancy
uncertain that
could be no
description.
direct
would be
of confirmation of sale
the order
may
court confirmed the sale of
as so
be held
Waterhouse estate on
sales
do
Sanger
S. W. 1012.
S. W. 426.
Under our construction
In so far as
[3] In
reason for
not think material
in the farm or
report
have before
person
the
defined,
this was
between the
be so
Worden to
though
of the former
Pierson
many
number of
v.
proceeding brought
as well
sale, advertisement,
of the
v.
v.
of acres
was of
price brought
ordered
the instant case
inspection
Touchstone,
certain
ground
and this would
Flood,
Roberts,
established,
owning
convey
county.
meager
owned at
boundaries of which are known
McBee v.
Likens,
Wilson
sale
was not of
sufficient
owned
holding
it
not void for
This
number of acres
two orders
all of the
the difference
confirmation
league.
land described
Richard
46
stated,
acres on
number of
number
Sanger,
description.
of the
belonging
cannot
showed
92 Tex.
or
Tex.
If there
named undivided
of the
only one
v.
and advertised
large
an
45
setting
describing
think the deed
Johnson,
character,
is so indefinite
undivided interest
at the
voluntary
the time of
misleading
all describe
Smith,
a tract of land con
administrator’s 'sale
The evidence shows
out of
Waterhouse, Jr.,
the
Tex.
B. X. Mudd
be true if
another a
probate court
identify
of the deed from
number stated
tract of
report,
tract of
93 Tex.
for that
only a
applicable to
will
sufficiency
that
determining
insufficiency
acres named
was no
application, or
the
land.
concerned,
tract
App. 644,
extrinsic
definite
stated,
sold
45 Tex.
the
48
be
such
sale
it
a
sales.
Tex.
and order
as to
the
and in a
S. W.
observed admitting
identify
absolute
the con
Richard
on said
can
and the
discrep
appears
descrip
purpose
Unless,
league.
league,
Water-
of the
S. W.
aside.
inter
there
land,
of a
sale.
641;
evi
103
ju
we
af
in because
1;
in
in
Augustine county
tee for said
conveyance of an
larger
tor.
it be
think the same construction should
described,
tenant
represented by
der of sale filed
husetts
states,
may
a
The
every
52
1
to
out of two more tracts
tract
and that contained
dence
Waterhouse
tus
12
is,
a number
number
489,
tain number of
tract
tion
pass by
contracts to
cordance with the
tract.
Schenk v.
than
plied
intention of the
distinguishable
case.
Case:
by
scribed in
rule
Womack,
be made
ed interest
the
ent
S. W.
“We are
number
If a
Metc.
a
we
Cal.
Cush.
the
Jones,
deed,
grantee
be stated thus:
which would
conveyance
and Hanrick v.
conveyed,
conveyance
whole, clearly
conceded that
construction should
announced
one which would render
acre
proportionate to the
to the
that
'should have
The
think, the correct
tract
complain
in
have announced
conveyance of an
court
655;
If not
grantee
such a
the evidence
reasonably susceptible
each
Waterhouse, Jr.,
of acres out of a
Dull
(Mass.)
equal
common, having
[Mass.]
by
of the
1 Tex. Civ.
equal
Evoy,
but a
remaining assignments
or
rule is thus stated in
the
the deed. The
acquires
Jones,
California,
Lawrence v.
the.
convey
opinion
the
conveyance
grantee becomes,
v.
a fraction
deed, and,
deeds,
that contained
J. H.
so
a deed
to the number of
from that construed in th
proportionate
24
acres,
admitting
254.’’
of a stated number
in
be
Blum,
specific
of title were in fact
398;
397, conveyance
grantee,
make
undivided interest
tract
need not
construed,
When
terms of the deed should
shows
Cal.
taken out of
the case of
such fractional interest in
number of
Bemis,
that the courts of Mass
when a
was not
Gurley,
-and whose numerator is
tract.
though
an
ruling of the court in
without
objections
said
68 Tex.
it valid and
rule to follow in
104;
of land
whose
sustained,
tract
to said
a fractional
a deed
Ballou,
when
56 S.
in this case. The
undescribed stated
that it
estate of Richard
*4
convey
trust executed
should
correct
acreage conveyed
trustee
doubtless of
holding
be
Brown v.
large
Wallace
large tract,
larger
when
93 Tex.
given
in
material
selection
it
Gibbs
by
denominator
discussed.
describing
W. 330. Th
court of San
conveys
a
299,
form a
Bemis,
void
37 Cal.
Dohoney
to said evi
an
larger
be selected
rule,
not be
tract
harmless,
construed
the error
it
construe-
tract de-
be
conveyed.
Dohoney
v.
in
v.
undivid-
4 S. W
binding,
in such
interest,
470,
case
for or
or con-
Bailey,
rather
Miller,
would
in ac
error,
in
Eras
given
Swift,
gran-
which
those
a cer-
trus
pres
tract
518;
5
in
v
a
a
/
I
s
,
j
|
ac
j
j
.
<
!'
‘
.
|
<
j
j
j
;
e
.4
e
GALLUP
v.
'
tion was that:
intervention.
having
fraction
to the number of
scribed,
to the number of acres
hearing
this state that a
fected tlie
grantee
acres,
be taken out of a
the contention
acquires
of
in
through
instrument,
involuntary
Texas Oil
tend that we erred
sold thereunder.
cannot be held sufficient
versed and rendered
appellees Gallup
the motion that
tary
and said
should be reversed
three
tion, and,
it matters not
we understand
sufficient
judgment
sions in a number of our earlier
judgment
dered that
lants
nothing
sale.
cient'in an
favor
ed to be
rounding
of this court be
150/2181
(and
“When a deed
From the views above
In Hermann v.
Reformed and affirmed
[5]
sufficient
their
involuntary.
want
holding
issue
Appellants
tracts of
that
agree
In our former
fractional
a becomes
description
and whose numerator is a number
whose denominator
applicable
such fractional
petition,
in which
appellees
description
On Motion
of sufficient
facts shown
the two
holding
judgment
here rendered
in tlie case
result of the trial.
as so
they
respectively,
their suit
administrator’s
the two tracts of
tract.”
considered in the
sales
with learned counsel for
Worden for the
2031/2181
that
It is ordered
appellees
describing
whether
voluntary conveyance
the'conveyance"
land described
appellants
take
if
rule cannot be
have filed motion for re
entered as above
reformed,
made that such
It seems to be conceded in
Likens it is
tracts of land
description
to be now
consistent
larger
they
written
contained in the the sale had
interest,
claim title are not void
would be
deed a tenant
in
adjudged
should be reversed
description
and could
opinion
conveyed.
the sale be
part.
the land
expressed,
Rehearing.
questioned by appel
very earnestly
should be
our former
judgment
a certain
description
in their
judgment
affirmed;
in an
extrinsic
ais
Waterhouse
East
represented by
court
with
100 acre
that would be
land described
settled law
part;
expressly
sheriff’s deed.
in each of the
sufficient,
in their
light
number
judgment
not have
and the East
their suit
involuntary
conveyed,
description
applied
proceeding
cases,
number
every
owners of
held
indicated.
favor
voluntary
it follows
awarding
here
sufficient,
the deci-
reformed
evidence,
the land
in favor
tract de-
common,
is suffi-
opinion
of sur-
intend-
grantee
volun
appel-
ques
equal
equal
peti
take
that
held
con
ren
acre
but
Oil sheriff’s or administrator’s
af-
re-
the survey. A deed to the deceased was
to tised that he would sell
j
|
lant’s
would be
were intended to
there are
ance to
conveyed
their
consistently
with a view to
upon
in
preme
graph
every
Brown v.
whether
own
policy
scrutinize
Luning,
quotes
2,181 acres,
in
nection with
was
probate proceedings
cases.
which the-estate
clear that all
sell
the court
to the
owned
survey,
this was all
Mudd
2,181
tempted
definitely described tracts
sold.
2,081 acres,
deed to the deceased
court directed
of the land described in the deed under
was intended to be sold?
of
probate
acres on said
ord in the
and all bidders
ty,
“In
*5
When
controversy in
some
that
description
probably
2,081
then on
right
favor,
regard, however,
reasonable intendment
of the law does not
United States in
administrator
Court.
counsel)
survey,
by the
identity
with
we
93 U.
proceedings.
to be reserved
we
showing that
survey.
reservation of the 100
would
conveyed,
Chambers, 63
intimations of
description
intended
sufficient
acres on
facts that
so as
court
advertisement
and therefore
county conveying
less an undefined 100 acres at-
consider
record, conveying
persons
approval
should not affect
S.
estate
thought
proceedings
him
and the administrator
Norris v.
defeat
opinion
containing
at
necessarily
accomplish.”
former
of the land intended to be
legal rules,
held,
held
definitely
there
this
the sale must have known
Gan
in fact owned all of
to sell
the rules are the
officer of the court.
secure, if
property
made
applied
under which
them.
the identical
interested
It is
the administrator
insufficient? The fact
the estate owned
suit
If the
this was all the land
in
and is it not
Tex. 131. The
the case White
there
the deceased on said
less 100
opinions
can
Mudd
Hermann
Hunt,
2,081
void
voluntary
description
Why, then,
of a
2,081
to sell
contrary
Ed. 938:
manifest
be sufficient in a
was sold
require
decided
will be
following
On
decedent,
be no doubt as
for an order to
Supreme
intended to be
it can be done
acres on said
survey.
to him three
land in the
asked to sell
acres on the
judicial
acres in the
party
of our Su
object
2,081
him
uncertain-
the estate
aggregate
Case also
and that
land that
courts
contrary,
doctrine
convey
equally
in con-
adver-
in his
Court
doubt
para
point
those
same,
2,181
rec-
(Tes.
REPORTER
SOUTHWESTERN
tention
think, manifest
contention
the deed to the deceased
not
passed
ed
posed
should
pellants,
est of Robert P.
of
acres,
plication
ed
ly
that case is
the 100 acres
one.
2,181
description given
and this court held
The evidence showed
levy
ancy
land owned
confirmation
application or order of sale.
ceased
Bee v.
mistake
would have been
ceased, we think it clear
order of sale liad in
sidered in connection
effect of
set out could not be made to
erred
Company also
the motion
the court and
ing
should
confirmation
number of acres
these orders
granted
In
It follows
undivided one-half interest
much
overruled,
in which
ordered
2,181
contention should be sustained. The
holding
Appellees
said sale to
the case of
Appellees Gallup
acres described in the deed to
should have
he
Johnson,
title to the
have been written
to sell an
of the Benjamin,
acres on the
in this
holding that,
sale were
divesting
and order of sale
more
the land as
regarded
cannot
2,081 acres,
and advertised
thought,
by Boyce
from what has
easily distinguished
and the deed the
“all
appellants
present
the administrator
selling
undivided
probable
Boyce
was insufficient. We think Error,