Burns v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 11 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6110.) |
| Citation | 207 S.W. 158 |
| Parties | BURNS et al. v. NICHOLS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Karnes County; Covey C. Thomas, Judge.
Trespass to try a title by T. J. Nichols against Bob Burns and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Williamson & Klingemann, of Karnes City, Faith & Murray, of Runge, and Arthur Parr, of Kenedy, for appellants.
A. J. Bell, of San Antonio, and C. L. Bell, of Karnes City, for appellee.
The petition in this case, filed by appellee, sets up an action of trespass to try title to 200 acres of land out of the Carlos Martinez 15-league grant, followed by allegations that his son, J. H. Nichols, now deceased, had filed a suit for partition in the district court of Karnes county, styled J. H. Nichols v. T. J. Nichols et al., seeking a partition of certain lands of which the 200 acres sued for were a part, and alleging that said lands were the community estate of appellee and his former wife, Nannie Nichols, and a judgment was rendered in the suit, the said 200 acres being allotted to appellee as his homestead, but that said judgment provided:
"That he (appellee) recover of and from each and all of the other parties said land, and that his title be quieted in him, in and to the same, but without prejudice to the rights of the heirs of the deceased wife of T. J. Nichols, Mrs. Nannie Nichols, in and to homestead tract known as lot No. 1."
Appellee alleged that since the partition he had claimed the land as his own, free from any equity or interest of any one, but because of the recital in the judgment he had filed the present suit to remove the cloud from his title. He also set up a long defense to an intervention of several parties who are alleged to be interveners; but there is nothing in the record to show such intervention, except a motion to be dismissed from the suit upon the part of Otto Ainsworth, Mrs. J. L. Ainsworth, Jake Freedman, R. L. Hammack, Sam F. Nave, and W. F. Hickle, who state that they had been made parties by H. H. Jones, intervener. If Jones ever appeared in the suit, the record fails to indicate it, except by the reference mentioned. The court heard the cause, without a jury, and rendered judgment in favor of appellee for the 200 acres of land, as against Bob Burns, Lillie Burns, L. P. Pullin, T. A. Nichols, John Nichols, Lela Nichols, Welma Nichols, Vida May Nichols, Lamar Nichols and Wadis Nichols, being app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Mitchell
...Juris, page 797; 24 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d Ed.), 776; Martin et al. v. Turner, Ky. 1909, 115 S.W. 833; Burns et al. v. Nichols, 、Tex. Civ. App. 1918, 207 S.W. 158; Hardin v. Hardin et al., 26 S.D. 601, 129 N.W. 108, Even if such a reservation of the issue for another hearing was erron......
-
Skinner v. Vaughan
...same was paid and, if not, what was the real consideration of the deed. Mahon v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W. 24; Burns v. Nichols, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W. 158; Hall v. Barrett, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d The justification for the trial court's rejection of this testimony on the former appea......
-
State Mortgage Corporation v. State
...suit." And see Burton v. City of Louisville (Ky.) 85 S. W. 727; State v. Liles (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 517; Burns v. Nichols (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 158; Martin v. Turner (Ky.) 115 S. W. 833; Buhler v. Hubbell, 56 Hun, 450, 647, 10 N. Y. S. 254; Haralson v. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 62......
-
Van v. Webb
...may uniformly be done. Rule 24 under Art. 3713, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stat.; Binford v. Snyder, 144 Tex. 134, 189 S.W.2d 471; Burns v. Nichols, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W. 158; McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence § 730(b). And the fact that the deeds expressed other consideration contractual in ......