Allen v. Bright

• Decision Date: 05 September 1893
• Citation: 23 S.W. 712
• Parties: ALLEN v. BRIGHT.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

23 S.W. 712

ALLEN v. BRIGHT.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

September 5, 1893.

Error from district court, Navarro county; Rufus Hardy, Judge.

Action by H. B. Allen, as administrator, etc., against W. R. Bright, to quiet title to land. There was a judgment in defendant's favor, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Baker & Prendergast, for plaintiff in error. Bennett Hill, W. R. Bright, and F. N. Read, for defendant in error.

Conclusions of Fact.

RAINEY, J.

In June, 1882, in consideration of $2,250 cash, defendant Bright and one Johnson, by warranty deed, conveyed to John Onstott one-third of a league of land in Navarro county. Onstott took possession of the land, and made valuable improvements thereon. At the time of the purchase he was a married man. His wife's name was Lou. She died in August, 1886. John Onstott died in January or February, 1888. They left surviving them four children. Allen qualified as the administrator of the estate of both John and Lou Onstott. In November, 1886, Eugene Lecompte, claiming to be the heir of the patentee, brought suit against John Onstott for the land, and for use and occupation. The children of Lou Onstott were not made parties to the suit. Bright, recognizing his liability on his warranty, employed counsel to defend the suit, on condition that Onstott would pay one-half the fee. Counsel filed an answer pleading the general issue. Onstott failed to do anything in the premises. Bright then, as president of the Texas Loan Agency, a private corporation, contracted with A. B. Lee, agent of the Lecompte heirs, to purchase said land for said corporation for $7,084. After this contract was agreed upon, the answer filed in said suit was withdrawn. In December, 1886, the Lecompte heirs recovered a judgment against Onstott for the land, and for use and occupation the sum of $1,400. After said judgment was rendered said land was deeded to said loan agency as per the contract theretofore made between Bright and Lee, agent. On the 31st day of January, 1887, a settlement was made between Bright and Onstott of the matters in controversy, as follows: The deed theretofore executed from Lecompte to the loan agency, was destroyed. Lecompte, at the request of the loan agency, executed a deed to said Onstott for 500 acres, being one-third of said land; the consideration expressed in the deed, $1,100; real consideration, the compromise. Lecompte executed a deed to the loan agency for balance — two-thirds — of said land;...