Bradford v. Knowles

• Citation: 14 S.W. 307
• Parties: BRADFORD <I>et al.</I> v. KNOWLES <I>et al.</I>
• Decision Date: 06 June 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

14 S.W. 307

BRADFORD et al. v. KNOWLES et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 6, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Gaudulupe county.

W. M. Rust and W. E. Goodrich, for appellants. W. R. Neal and John Ireland, for appellees.

HENRY, J.

Appellants brought this suit to recover a tract of land containing 1,200 acres. The case was tried without a jury, and a judgment was rendered in favor of defendants. There is no statement of facts. A bill of exceptions shows that defendants were permitted to introduce in evidence the record of another cause tried in the district court of Comal county, in which the plaintiffs in this suit were plaintiffs, and one John P. Erskine was the defendant. That suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of a promissory note alleged to be due them by M. Erskine, John P. Erskine, and A. N. Erskine. The defendant in that suit pleaded that said note had been paid off and discharged by a conveyance to the plaintiffs of the land now in controversy. The plaintiffs filed a replication to the answer, denying that any such settlement of the note sued upon had ever been made, and especially denying that the land in controversy had ever been conveyed to them, and also charging that if said deed was ever executed, as defendant alleged, it was upon conditions prescribed in a deed of release sent by Erskine for execution as a part and parcel of said deed, which plaintiffs refused to accept or ratify, and that they also refused to accept the deed in satisfaction of the note, wherefore they charged the deed was null and void. The record introduced in evidence contains the pleadings, evidence, and judgment in said cause. It is evident from the record that the plaintiffs had a valid and subsisting note, and were entitled to a judgment for its recovery if it had not been discharged by a conveyance to them of the land in controversy. The result of that suit was a judgment in favor of defendant, and that plaintiffs take nothing. The judge filed in the cause now before us the following conclusions of law and fact: "(1) That the parties prove title to the land sued for under a common source by deeds from M. Erskine. (2) That plaintiffs' deed from Erskine is of older date than that under which defendants claim. (3) That defendants have proven a regular chain of transfer from and under the sovereignty of the soil, under color of title, or title, and were in peaceable and quiet possession of the land sued for for more than three years before the institution of this suit. (4) That defendants have had peaceable and adverse possession of the land sued for, holding and enjoying the same, paying taxes thereon, and claiming under deeds duly registered for more than five years next before the institution of this suit. (5) That defendants have not had such possession of said land as would entitle them to the bar of the ten years' limitation; the actual possession of the land not having been in them for ten years before the institution of this suit. (6) The defendants have proved by the certified copy of the record of the suit of W. M. F. Ehringhaus et al. vs. Jno. P. Erskine, (admitted in evidence over the objection of plaintiffs,) decided in the district court of Comal county, Oct. 11, 1873, on change of venue from this county, and by other evidence, that the parties to this suit, plaintiffs herein, and those under whom these plaintiffs claim, were plaintiffs in said suit, and that they in said suit renounced and disclaimed any interest in or claim to the land now herein sued for. (7) The court further finds that all of the parties plaintiff except Mrs. Bradford and the minor Culpepper are barred by the three and five years statutes of limitations; that the parties plaintiffs, seven in number, would, were they entitled to recover in this suit, have a one-seventh interest each in the land sued for, they being the same parties, and their legal representatives, to whom Erskine conveyed the land in May, 1860. (8) That the plea of coverture and minority interposed by the said Mrs. Bradford and the minor Culpepper is proved, and that they are not barred by said statute of three or five years." Whereupon the court holds as a conclusion of law that, by reason of the legal effect to be given the judgment and record in the suit decided by the district court of Comal county, neither of the parties plaintiff can recover in this suit, they having elected in said suit, by their proper representatives, to repudiate the deed under which they claim now; that they are bound by the recitals in said suit, and the judgment therein; and therefore judgment is given for the defendants.

We think that the judgment rendered in 1873 must be given exactly the opposite effect to that held by the court in its conclusion of law. By the pleadings an issue was made as to whether or not the conveyance of the land to plaintiffs ever did take effect. If it did, the note then sued on was discharged because the title to the land now in controversy had been conveyed to and vested in plaintiffs by the owner of the land, or, at least, such title as the maker of the deed could convey. If it did not, plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment for the amount of their note. Between the parties to that suit the judgment therein rendered as much settled that the land had been conveyed to plaintiffs as it did that they could not recover upon the note. The record of the first suit shows that a controversy existed as to whether or not the...