Barnes v. Jamison

• Decision Date: 01 January 1859
• Citation: 24 Tex. 362
• Parties: ABRAHAM BARNES v. HARRISON JAMISON AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

24 Tex. 362

ABRAHAM BARNES

v.HARRISON JAMISON AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1859.

This court has frequently declined to consider instructions which do not bear the judge's signature.

If the defendant has the legal title, he is not required to show, that he is an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice, but the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, to show a superior equitable title in himself.

APPEAL from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford.

This suit was brought by Abraham Barnes against Harrison Jamison and John Bundy, to recover 320 acres of land, and to have decreed to him the title of the certificate, by virtue of which it was located.

The plaintiff stated, that he was the owner of a certificate, for one-third of a league of land, granted to Isaac C. Williamson; that he acquired the said certificate from George W. Wright, in lieu of other certificates he had previously bought of Wright, the titles of which were not valid, or were supposed not to be; that the defendant, Jamison, pretending to act as his agent, got the certificate from Wright, erased the plaintiff's name in the transfer, and inserted his own; and without authority from the plaintiff, sold 320 acres of the said certificate to one William P. Walton, who had sold the land located by virtue of it, to the defendant, Bundy, and had given him a bond for title.

The testimony showed, that Jamison was acting as the agent of the plaintiff, in procuring and locating certificates, and was instructed to make the settlement with Wright, on account of the certificates previously sold to the plaintiff, the titles for which were supposed to be defective; and that he applied to Wright for the other certificates which he had agreed to give in place of those; that Wright delivered to him, as the agent of the plaintiff, the certificate in question, making a transfer of the certificate in blank, upon the back of it. Jamison, afterwards, inserted his name in the blank, sold 320 acres of it to Walton, and executed to him a deed for the same; and Walton subsequently sold to the defendant, Bundy, the 320 acres of land located by virtue of it, and executed to him a bond for title. The defendants read in evidence, a letter from the plaintiff to Jamison, which showed that the latter was his agent, attending to his business in Texas, and which recognized his authority to dispose of his certificates; there was other testimony tending to prove the same fact. The plaintiff resided in Missouri, and was, at the time the letter was written, about removing to California.

The plaintiff asked, and the court refused to charge the jury, “that in order for defendant, Bundy, to protect himself under his purchase from Walton, he must have pleaded in his answer that Walton was an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, and must also prove that Walton had, in good faith, paid such valuable consideration.”

There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants; a motion for a new trial was overruled, and the plaintiff appealed.

John C. Easton, for the appellant. To entitle a party to protection in a court of equity, as an innocent purchaser without notice, etc., such purchase must not only be bona fide, without notice, and for a...