Harle v. Langdon's Heirs

• Decision Date: 18 December 1883
• Docket Number: Case No. 1396.
• Citation: 60 Tex. 555
• Parties: R. B. HARLE ET AL. v. LANGDON'S HEIRS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

60 Tex. 555

R. B. HARLE ET AL.

v.LANGDON'S HEIRS.

Case No. 1396.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 18, 1883.

APPEAL from Navarro. Tried below before the Hon. L. D. Bradley.

The following statement of the case, in connection with the facts set out in the opinion, will be sufficient for a clear understanding of the case:

The litigation which was ended by the judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted is in regard to the title of a tract of six hundred acres of land, a part of the S. F. McCandless one-third of a league survey in Navarro county; the facts in regard to the same, as set up in appellants' pleadings, are as follows: On the 2d of April, 1861, David McCandless, then the owner of said land, sold and conveyed the same to R. E. and F. S. Tate, reserving a “vendor's lien” for the purchase money. Tate and wife transferred to McCandless in payment for the land in suit W. A. Lockhart's note to them for $1,410.42 and by them indorsed and its payment gurantied.

On the 2d of June, 1864, Tate and wife sold and conveyed the same to W. S. Langdon (ancestor of appellees), with notice to him of the unpaid “vendor's lien” of McCandless. On the 15th of September, 1866 (Langdon having in the meantime left the state), McCandless, the original vendor, brought suit against Tate and wife and W. A. Lockhart, his vendees, in the district court of Navarro county, to foreclose his “lien” on the land, and obtained a final judgment of “foreclosure,” with an “order of sale.” On the 3d of May, 1868, the sheriff sold the land and made a deed for same to said McCandless, who became the purchaser, paying therefor $100, which bid was credited on his execution. This judgment was never appealed from nor reversed.

On the 20th July, 1871, McCandless, to perfect his title, brought suit (Langdon being then dead) against the heirs of W. S. Langdon, of trespass to try title to said six hundred acres of land. On the 25th November, 1872, there was a final judgment for the plaintiff, McCandless, against the heirs of Langdon. After motion for a new trial made and overruled, notice of appeal was given by defendants, but it was not perfected, no appeal bond was given, and the appeal was abandoned. This suit was numbered 901.

On the 5th February, 1872, McCandless sold and conveyed the land to Jno. B. Jones, by deed of general warranty duly recorded.

On the 2d April, 1873, Jno. B. Jones sold and conveyed three hundred acres of the tract to the defendant, R. B. Harle, for a valuable consideration, by deed of general warranty, duly recorded.

On the 1st of July, 1874, the heirs of Langdon sued out a writ of error to the judgment of the district court in the suit of McCandless v. The Heirs of Langdon, and the same was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial by the supreme court, at the Austin term, 1881, of the court. This suit is No. 2003.

In the meantime, on August 4, 1880, the heirs of Langdon brought suit of trespass to try title against defendants, Jones and Harle, for the six hundred acres in controversy. Both suits were pending and came on for trial at the July term, 1881, of the district court of Navarro county, at which time the heirs of McCandless made themselves parties plaintiffs to the suit, No. 941, by suggesting the death of their father, and Jno. B. Jones, one of the defendants in suit No. 2003, came in, and a judgment by confession was rendered against him for three hundred acres of said land claimed by him. The defendant Harle answered and pleaded in bar of plaintiffs' action, in substance, as follows:

That he had the superior title to the land, having derived his title to same through a judicial sale under a final judgment of the district court of Navarro county.

That he was a bona fide purchaser, without notice of any litigation pending with regard to said land.

He also pleaded the statutes of limitations of three and five years, and suggested “improvements in good faith.”

These two suits were, on motion of appellees, over the objection of defendant Harle, consolidated, and, on the hearing of the consolidated cause, the district court sustained the general exceptions of the heirs of Langdon to the answers of defendant Harle, and he declining to amend further, gave judgment against him for the three hundred acres in controversy.

Reed & Reed, for appellants, cited: French v. Grenet, 57 Tex., 273;Wallace v. Campbell, 54 Tex., 87;McAnear v. Epperson, 54 Tex., 220;Wheeler v. Ahrenbeak, 54 Tex., 535;Hill v. Spear, 48 Tex., 583;Hollis v. Dashiell, 52 Tex., 187;Taylor v. Snow, 47 Tex., 463;Peticolas v. Carpenter, 53 Tex., 23;Mosely v. Gainer, 10 Tex., 394;Taylor v. Rowland, 26 Tex., 293;Stroud v. Casey, 25 Tex., 744;Gibbs v. Belcher, 30 Tex., 79;Wofford v. McKinna, 23 Tex., 43;Sartain v. Hamilton, 12 Tex., 220; R. S., art. 3193.

R. Q. Mills, also for appellants, cited: 1 Story's Eq., §§ 405, 406; 2 Sug. Ven., 536; Freeman on Judgments, 484; Rorer on Judicial Sales, 138, 139, 898-902; Kinsman v. Kinsman, 2 Russ. & Mylne, 617; Scarborough v. Worsely, 2 Atk., 392; Price v. White, Bailey (S. C. Eq. Rep.), 244; Boone v. Childs, 10 Pet., 177; Taylor v. Boyd, 3 Hamm. (Ohio), 338; Fox v. Reeder, 28 Ohio, 181; Holbrook v. New York Zinc Co., 57 N. Y., 616;Fergus v. Woodward, 44 Ill., 374;Mulvey v. Gibbons, 87 Ill., 367; Eldridge v. Walker, 80 Ill.; Hobson v. Ewan, 62 Ill., 146; Gott v. Powell, 41 Mo.; Sayre v. Thompson, 28 Ark., 336; Howard v. North, 5 Tex., 290;Morton v. Welborn, 21 Tex., 772;Davis v. Roosevelt, 53 Tex., 305.

Simpkins, Simpkins & Neblett, for appellees, cited: Herndon v. Rice, 21 Tex., 455;Brown v. Lane, 19 Tex., 205; Stone v. Darnell, 25 Tex. Sup., 430; Burns v. Ledbetter, 56 Tex., 282;Peters v. Clements, 46 Tex., 115;Garrett v. Gaines, 6 Tex., 435;Meyberg v. Stegall, 51 Tex., 351;Pool v. Sanford, 52 Tex., 633;Whitman v. Willis, 51 Tex., 425; Crawford v. French, 25 Tex. Sup., 436; Loper v. Robinson, 54 Tex., 516;Cundiff v. Teague, 46 Tex., 475;Hickcock v. Bell, 46 Tex., 612;Moore v. Moore, 59 Tex., 54;Hart v. Mills, 38 Tex., 513;Brackenridge v. City of San Antonio, 39 Tex., 64.

STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

On April 2, 1861, David McCandless sold the land in controversy to R. E. & F. S. Tate, for which he received a note on Lockhart, which seems to have been indorsed by the Tates. June 2, 1864, the Tates sold the land to W. S. Langdon. September 15, 1866, McCandless brought suit against the Tates and Lockhart on the note which he had received for the land, and asked a foreclosure of the vendor's lien.

To this suit Langdon was not made a party, and on May 3, 1868, McCandless obtained a judgment against the defendants in that suit for the amount due on the note and foreclosing the vendor's lien, and under this judgment he caused the land to be sold and himself became the purchaser, bidding therefor $100, which was credited on his judgment.

July 20, 1871, McCandless brought a suit of trespass to try title against two of the three children of Langdon, he being then dead, and also against Mrs. Langdon, who was also dead.

One of the children of Langdon made a party to the suit, as well as one that was not made a party, was a minor. In that suit, on November 25, 1872, a judgment for the land was rendered in favor of McCandless.

On February 5, 1872, pending that suit, McCandless sold the land to John B. Jones, who on April 2, 1873, sold three hundred acres of it to the appellant Harle.

On July 1, 1874, the heirs of Langdon prosecuted a writ of error, and at the Austin term, 1881, of this court, the judgment in favor of McCandless was reversed and the cause remanded. That cause is numbered 941.

August 4, 1880, the children of Langdon brought a suit against Jones and Harle for the land, and that is numbered 2003.

Judgment was rendered by confession against Jones for three hundred acres of the land.

Pending cause 941 McCandless died, and his heirs made themselves parties thereto, but they in no respect changed the character of the suit, except that they alleged the purchase of the land by their ancestor and prayed that the satisfaction of his judgment against Lockhart and the Tates be vacated to the extent of his bid for the land, in case it should be found that Langdon's heirs had the better title to the land, and that a vendor's lien to that extent be established and enforced against the land. Neither Lockhart nor either of the Tates was a party to this suit, and a demurrer was sustained to the pleadings of the heirs of McCandless. This is assigned as error.

Causes 941 and 2003 were consolidated, and this is assigned as error.

The appellant Harle set up in his answer the purchase by Jones pending cause 941, and his purchase from Jones after a judgment was rendered in that cause and before a writ of error was sued out by the Langdon heirs, in bar of their action. To his pleading a demurrer was sustained and this is assigned as error.

The appellees not having been parties to the suit brought by McCandless against Lockhart and the Tates, no facts are shown which could make the judgment rendered in that case binding upon them. Lockhart and the Tates are not parties to either of the consolidated suits before us, and it certainly is true that no action could be taken to vacate satisfaction of judgment in that case in one in which they are not parties; and besides, McCandless got whatever title to the land Lockhart or Tate and wife had at the time he obtained judgment against them, and that this may not have been good title, nor any title at all, does not furnish sufficient ground for setting aside the satisfaction of judgment to the extent of his bid.

A case is not shown in which the purchaser failed to get title by the sale, such as the judgment debtor held, through some defect in the process or in the manner of its execution, as in Howard v. North, 5 Tex., 291;Brown v. Lane, 19 Tex., 203;Morton v. Welborn, 21 Tex., 774;Herndon v. Rice, 21 Tex., 455.

While the parties, in name, in the two suits, were not the same, yet in...