Styles v. Gray

• Decision Date: 01 January 1853
• Parties: STYLES v. GRAY.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

10 Tex. 503

STYLES

v.GRAY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1853.

A superior outstanding title in a third person is a good defense in an action of trespass to try title, although the defendant may not claim under such title. (Note 88.)

Where a bill of exceptions merely stated that the defendant offered the record books of the county clerk's office to show an outstanding title in a third person, which the court rejected, &c., it was held that the exception was too vague, that it shonld have shown what the evidence substantially was.

The record books of the county clerk's office of recorded deeds, &c., cannot be introduced in evidence to prove title, at least not without notice to the opposite party. (Note 89.)

A patent is conclusive evidence of the qualifications of the patentee in the absence of proof of fraud; it is not sufficient to offer to prove merely that the grantee was not the head of a family, &c. (Note 90.)

Where a bill of exceptions stated that the defendant offered to prove that the land included in the plaintiff's patent was never surveyed under or by virtue of the certificate of the patentee, but that the field notes were made under a different certificate, and were transferred to the patentee after defendant's location and survey, which evidence was rejected, &c.: Held, There was no error, as the defendant did not offer to prove that his location was anterior to that of the patentee, nor that the field notes were not made upon a survey of a certificate previously filed upon the same land.

Where a bill of exceptions stated merely that the defendant offered evidence to attack the correctness of the surveyor's record and to show frauds in the dates of the location and survey of Ann Gray, (under whom the plaintiff claimed,) which was ruled out by the court, &c.: Held, That the exception was too vague and uncertain; that it should have stated what the evidence was.

Appeal from Shelby.

J. M. Ardrey, for appellant.

A. W. O. Hicks, for appellee.

LIPSCOMB, J.

The record is so very defective, and leaves it so uncertain as to what defenses had been ruled out on the exceptions of the appellee, that we cannot notice any supposed error that may have been committed by the court in relation to such rulings. There is nothing that we can examine but such questions as have been presented by the several bills of exception, the charges of the court, and the statement of facts.

The first bill of exceptions shows that “the defendant offered the book of records of the county clerk's office to show an outstanding title to said land, defendant admitting at the same time that he did not claim under said outstanding title, which testimony was ruled out by the court.”

If the question had been presented whether it was competent for the defendant to set up in his defense, when sued to recover land of which he was possessed, that there was a superior outstanding title to the plaintiffs, we have no doubt that he could have done so, without its being pleaded specially under our statute authorizing the defendant in such cases to offer in evidence any matter material to his defense under the plea of not guilty. Such evidence would certainly be material to the defense, because the plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. There are objections to the manner in which the bill of exceptions is framed that would justify the ruling of the court, or at least it would show there was no sufficient ground for reversing the judgment. The evidence may not have been ruled out on the ground that it was not lawful for the defendant to defend himself by showing an outstanding superior title to the plaintiff's. There might have been exceptions to the kind of evidence offered; hence the necessity of a party excepting to the decision of the court excluding evidence showing in his bill what the evidence substantially was that he wished to use in his defense. This is not shown by the exception; it may have been inadmissible on other grounds. It does not show who is the holder of this outstanding title, and it does not set up or show that this outstanding title is superior to the plaintiff's. It only showed an offer to prove “an outstanding title.” It should be an outstanding superior title, to make it available to the defendant. The mere fact of there being an outstanding title would not be a defense. The defendant offered the proof by reading from the record book of the county clerk. The law makes no provision for the original books of record of another court being read as evidence, but provides for certified copies. But these cannot be read if the original can be produced. If the original has been recorded, it may be read in evidence on filing it in court in the papers of such suit in which he proposes to use it at least three days before the commencement of the trial of suit, and giving notice of such filing to the opposite party or his attorney of record. (See Hart. Dig., art. 745.) It would be an evasion of the law cited to permit the original record book to be read in evidence, if otherwise unobjectionable, without notice to the opposite party. The...