Barnett v. Vincent
| Decision Date | 10 February 1888 |
| Citation | 7 S.W. 525 |
| Parties | BARNETT v. VINCENT <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Grimes county; N. G. KITTRELL, Judge.
Action of trespass to try title, by J. P. Barnett against Harvey Vincent and others, for the possession of certain land in Grimes county. There was a trial by the court. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
J. Earle Preston, for appellant. W. W. Meacham, for appellees.
The appellant brought suit against Robert Vincent upon a promissory note executed by the latter February 18, 1884, and had an attachment levied on 50 acres of land, and, at the sale of the land under the judgment obtained in the suit, bought it, crediting the purchase money upon the execution. Appellant then instituted this action of trespass to try title for a recovery of the land against the appellees, who were in possession.
The appellees' claim to the land is substantially the following: In January, 1871, Robert Vincent and Sawney Williams bought of Robert Lockhart 500 acres of land, paying in cash $1,000, and giving notes for the balance of the purchase money, about $4,000. Robert Vincent and Sawney Williams were brothers-in-law; and the former had two, and the latter three, children. Gif Williams, son of Sawney, married Maria, a daughter of Robert, in 1871. Lockhart retained a vendor's lien for the unpaid purchase money, and one Barker loaned the purchasers the $1,000 they paid in cash. The land, when bought, was unimproved, but the purchasers placed tenants upon it to clear it up, and soon thereafter moved upon it themselves, and have ever since resided upon the land. It was the understanding between Williams and Vincent and their children, made known at the time, that they were to live together upon the land, and use their joint earnings to pay for it; also that, when paid for, each child should have 50 acres of the land set apart to him by metes and bounds. When they went on the land, each party selected a place to settle on, and built upon it; the defendant Gif Williams building in 1871 on the land selected for his wife, but he afterwards moved upon another tract selected for himself. The Lockhart debt was paid in 1876, and the Barker debt in 1883; all parties contributing their individual means towards its payment. On January 14, 1879, Sawney Williams made a deed to Gif Williams of 150 acres of the land, reserving the right of possession during life; and on August 18, 1882, Robert Vincent made a deed to Maria Williams for 50 acres of the land for a home, to revert to the grantor on breach of certain conditions. This latter deed was filed for record October 14, 1882. Sawney Williams and Robert Vincent, having previously divided the 500 acres between themselves, on December 18, 1883, the former deeded to Gif Williams 50 acres, and the latter to his daughter Maria Williams 50 acres, and to his son 50 acres also, and each a like quantity to his other children; the deeds describing the land according to a previous survey made by one Berkley, and each party's survey including the land and improvements occupied by him. These deeds were recorded December 20, 1883. Harvey Vincent and Gif Williams lived on the land set apart and afterwards deeded to them, with their families, continuously from 1871 to the beginning of this suit, clearing and fencing their farms at a heavy expense. The note upon which the attachment was sued out, under which appellant claims, was given for the balance due on an open account for supplies furnished by Barnett to the elder Williams and Vincent, for themselves and their sons and daughters and their families, during the course of several years, ending in 1882 or 1883. The purchases were made with the understanding that such supplies should be charged to the elder Williams and Vincent. Upon this state of facts, the cause was submitted below to the judge, who placed his conclusions of law and fact in the record, and rendered judgment for the appellees. Barnett appealed.
The appellant, having credited the purchase money of the land upon his execution, took the land charged with all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. City Nat. Bank of Commerce
...Ayres v. Duprey, 27 Tex. 606, 86 Am. Dec. 657; Delespine v. Campbell, 52 Tex. 4; McKamey v. Thorp, 61 Tex. 648; Barnett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685, 7 S. W. 525, 5 Am. St. Rep. 98. That the judgment of the trial court will be sustained, if it appears that no other judgment could have been rende......
-
Jackson v. Hernandez
...the other purchaser of his share of the purchase price, a valid and enforceable parol trust arises in favor of the latter. Barnett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685, 7 S.W. 525; McAlister v. Eclipse Oil Co., 128 Tex. 449, 98 S.W.2d 171; Cluck v. Sheets, 141 Tex. 219, 171 S.W.2d 860. And in Johnson v.......
-
Jones v. Parker, 6202.
...in land may be engrafted upon written instruments by parol testimony. Kinlow v. Kinlow, 72 Tex. 639, 10 S.W. 729; Barnett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685, 7 S.W. 525, 5 Am.St.Rep. 98; Lucia v. Adams, 36 Tex.Civ.App. 454, 82 S.W. 335; Allen v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 105 S.W. 53; Faville v. Robinson, 1......
-
Dickens v. Dickens
...Tex. 134, 189 S.W.2d 471. This testimony tends to raise the issue as to an express trust rather than a resulting trust. Barnett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685, 7 S.W. 525; McAlister v. Eclipse Oil Co., 128 Tex. 449, 98 S.W.2d 171; Bennett v. McKrell, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 701, 702, modified and......