Bailey v. Harris
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 19 Tex. 108 |
| Parties | WILLIAM BAILEY v. L. P. HARRIS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Where A made an agreement with B for the purchase of a tract of land, and C furnished or loaned the purchase money to A to pay for the land, and took the deed from B in his own name, with the consent of A, upon verbal agreement that A should have five years to repay the money by paying ten per cent. interest thereon, at any time he, A, might elect so to do, and take the land; it was held that as our statute of frauds does not inhibit the creation of trusts in lands by parol agreements, the facts constituted C the trustee of A; and the latter, having tendered performance within the time, and brought suit to compel a conveyance of the land, recovered judgment to that effect against C. [2 Tex. 139;5 Tex. 512.]
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer.
The statement of facts was as follows: Deed from Theodore J. Dorsett to defendant Bailey, for sixty-seven acres of land in Rusk county, dated March 29, 1853; consideration $100.50. The plaintiff (Harris) then proved in substance (in the language of the statement of facts), by three witnesses, that the plaintiff had made a contract with the maker of the deed aforesaid, for the land described therein, and that the defendant had furnished or loaned the money to the plaintiff to pay for the land, and took the deed for the same in his, defendant's, own name, by and with the consent of the plaintiff; and it was then and there agreed by and between them, that said plaintiff was to have five years to repay the money by paying ten per cent. interest thereon, at any time he, plaintiff, might elect so to do, and take the land. And plaintiff further proved that on the 9th day of July, 1855 (before this suit was instituted.--REPS.), he tendered to said defendant the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars in specie to pay back the purchase money and interest, advanced by the defendant for the land in controversy, which defendant refused to accept.
The jury found for the plaintiff. Motion for new trial overruled, etc.
A demurrer to the petition which detailed the facts afterwards proved as aforesaid, and tendered performance and prayed a decree for a conveyance of the land, was overruled.
S. P. Hollingsworth, for appellant, cited 4 Kent. 305, 306, and authorities there cited in note; Willis v. Willis, 2 Ark.; Bartlett v. Pickesgill, 1 Eden, 515. This is entirely a different case from James v. Fulcrod, 5 Tex....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mauritz v. Bell
...Floyd's Adm'r, 10 Tex. 159; James v. Fulcrod, 5 Tex. 512, 55 Am. Dec. 743; Brotherton v. Weathersby, 73 Tex. 471, 11 S. W. 505; Bailey v. Harris, 19 Tex. 108, 109; Cuney v. Dupree, 21 Tex. 211; Dunham v. Chatham, 21 Tex. 231, 73 Am. Dec. 228; Johnson v. Deloney, 35 Tex. 42; Strickland v. Ba......
-
Stone v. Fitts, 14348.
...in trust, it is equivalent to the furnishing of the money by the beneficiary to pay the purchase price in the first place. Bailey v. Harris, 19 Tex. 108, 109; Lucia v. Adams, 36 Tex.Civ.App. 454, 82 S.W. 335; Vicars v. Quinn, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 947; Elbert v. Waples-Platter Co., Tex.C......
-
Scott v. Cliett
...as was decreed by the trial court in this instance, on a deed absolute in form. James v. Fulcrod, 5 Tex. 512, 55 Am.Dec. 743; Bailey v. Harris, 19 Tex. 108, 109; Leakey v. Gunter, 25 Tex. 400; Carl v. Settegast, Tex. Com.App., 237 S.W. 238; Lassiter v. Bouche, Tex.Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 831, 83......
-
Jarrett v. Hall, 4430.
...thought that he was doing these very things, as plaintiff testified, in effect, to believing. Such a trust was enforcible. Bailey v. Harris, 19 Tex. 108, 109; Hirshfeld v. Howard, Tex. Civ.App., 59 S.W. 55, 60 S.W. 806; Lucia v. Adams, 36 Tex.Civ.App. 454, 82 S.W. 335; Salter v. Gentry, 61 ......