Goode v. Jasper

Decision Date05 June 1888
Citation9 S.W. 132
PartiesGOODE <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> JASPER <I>et al.</I>
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Plaintiffs, Mary A. Goode, R. J. Goode, D. C. Goode, John Goode, Sarah Irvin, joined by her husband, William Irvin, Lula Layne, joined by her husband, William Layne, Sara L. or Lula Rodgers, joined by her husband, George W. Rodgers, G. W. Goode, Mary McBurnett, joined by her husband, William McBurnett, Delia Wilson, joined by her husband, P. O. Wilson, and Sarah May, joined by her husband, ____ May, as heirs of E. N. Goode, deceased instituted this suit, September 13, 1884, in the district court of Hill county, against A. J. Jasper, James Bailey, B. F. Fortune, William Rawles, and Cabell. The suit is an action of trespass to try title to recover 315 acres, described by metes and bounds, out of the E. N. Goode 640-acre survey in Hill county. Defendants answered by plea of "not guilty;" and, further, by special plea, averring (1) that the land sued for is a part of a survey of 640 acres patented to E. N. Goode by virtue of Mercer's colony certificate No. 39, issued by the district court of Kaufman county, November 11, 1856; (2) that said 640-acre survey was the community property of E. N. Goode, and his first wife, whose name defendants are informed was Catherine; (3) that said E. N. Goode sold by metes and bounds to J. R. Grover 325 acres of said survey on July 15, 1861, after divorce between himself and his wife, Catherine; (4) that said sale was intended by E. N. Goode as a partition between himself and said Catherine, — the said 325 acres sold being of equal value with the 315 acres unsold, the land in controversy; (5) that the title to the land sued for is not in plaintiffs, but in said Catherine, if living, and, if dead, in her heirs, because the partition made by E. N. Goode is fair and equitable, his vendees have made valuable improvements, and, in a suit for partition, would be protected. A jury was waived. The case was submitted to the judge, who rendered judgment for defendants, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed. The proof showed that E. N. Goode and Catherine, his wife, were married January 2, 1848, and were divorced, by decree of the district court of Bell county, at the spring term, 1855. On the 11th day of November, 1856, certificate No. 39, for 640 acres of land, was issued by the district court of Kaufman county to E. N. Goode, by virtue of his immigration to and settlement in Mercer's colony, which was located on 640 acres of land, a part of which is in controversy, and patent issued to him February 5, 1860. July 16, 1861, he conveyed to J. R. Grover 325 acres of the land; the deed reciting a consideration of $210. Goode married again, and in June, 1881, died, leaving no children, but his last wife, Mary A. Goode, surviving him, who was alive at the time of the trial, living in Bell county. Plaintiffs are Goode's heirs, his last wife's brothers and sisters, and their descendants. One witness, R. J. Goode, testified that Mrs. Catherine Goode was dead; that his brother E. N. Goode told him so. There were two children by the first marriage, who died in infancy. The statement of facts does not show when the first wife died, except that it was before the death of E. N. Goode. It does not appear who were the heirs of Catherine Goode, or that she had any. Plaintiffs offered to prove that J. R. Grover had surveyed for E. N. Goode the land described in the patent, and that the deed of the 325 acres to Grover was executed in consideration of his services in locating the certificate on the land; but the court excluded the evidence.

B. D. Tarlton, for appellants. A. T. McKinney and W. L. Booth, for appellees.

COLLARD, J., (after stating the facts.)

E. N. Goode and Catherine, his wife, were married in 1848. They were divorced in 1855 by decree of the district court of Bell county. During their coverture, they acquired a right to a certificate for 640 acres of land as colonists in Mercer's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Culmell v. Borroum
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 1896
    ...granted, placed the legal title to the land in him. Keyes v. Railroad Co., 50 Tex. 174; Hermann v. Reynolds, 52 Tex. 391; Goode v. Jasper, 71 Tex. 51, 9 S. W. 132; Abernathy v. Stone, 81 Tex. 430, 16 S. W. 1102. This would be true whether the transfer of the certificate took place before or......
  • Freeman v. Pierce
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 1922
    ...of the parties, the community estate as such is terminated only upon dissolution of the marriage by death or divorce." Goode v. Jasper, 71 Tex. 48, 9 S. W. 132. When the marriage relation was dissolved by the divorce of Mary Carey Pierce from Gus Pierce, the property was not disposed of or ......
  • Branham v. Minear
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 1947
    ...an equitable title in a third person who does not himself assert such equity. * * *" Citing Shields v. Hunt, 45 Tex. 424; Goode v. Jasper, 71 Tex. 48, 51, 9 S.W. 132. The State has asserted no equity in said mineral (b) "In order to defeat recovery an outstanding title must appear to be sup......
  • Singleton v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Corp.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 1959
    ...was sufficient in the circumstances to support the judgment, since appellant does not purport to hold under his brother. Goode v. Jasper, 71 Tex. 48, 9 S.W. 132; 41-A Tex.Jur. 529--Trespass to Try Title, sec. Had findings favorable to appellant been made in response to the limitation issues......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT