Butler v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 30 January 1908
• Citation: 107 S.W. 656
• Parties: BUTLER et al. v. ANDERSON et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

107 S.W. 656

BUTLER et al. v. ANDERSON et al.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

January 30, 1908.

Rehearing Denied February 20, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.

Action by Mary Anderson and another against J. R. Butler and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H. S. Nutt and P. A. Dowlen, for appellants. J. V. Fleming and Oliver J. Todd, for appellees.

LEVY, J.

The appellee Mary Anderson, joined by her husband, sued the appellants in trespass to try title, and further claimed, by particular allegations in the petition, that appellants had, through means of fraudulent representations, obtained a deed to the property without paying them any consideration, and prayed for damages. Appellants in their answer denied any fraudulent representations, and pleaded that they agreed to build the appellees a house upon a part of their land in consideration for the land in controversy; that appellees, subsequently desiring a release from the contract, entered into an agreement whereby the appellants deeded back to the appellees all of the tract of land theretofore conveyed, except two small tracts that they had previously deeded to other parties, and in full satisfaction for these two lots they paid appellees the sum of $30 cash. The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of the appellees for $300 damages, and judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. The appellants bring this case on appeal and assign errors.

Appellee Mary Anderson owned in her own separate right, acquired by inheritance from her deceased father, a tract of land on which she resided with her husband, occupying the same as a homestead. On the 4th day of February, 1902, Mary Anderson, joined by her husband, executed to the appellants a general warranty deed to a portion of this homestead, and which deed she acknowledged and delivered, reciting the consideration to be $800 cash. Appellants, on February 24, 1902, sold two lots of the tract conveyed to them to other parties. Appellants, on the 14th day of July, 1902, reconveyed to the appellees all the land conveyed to them by the appellees on the 4th day of February, 1902, except the two lots which were sold by them by deed on February 24, 1902. Prior to February 4, 1902, the appellants agreed with the appellees to build them a house on a part of their homestead, and receive as pay, when the house was built, a deed to the land shown in the deed of February 4, 1902. Appellee Mary Anderson is an old woman, and can neither read nor write, and had had no business transactions of the kind under consideration during her life. Mary Anderson claims that the appellants, after the agreement to build the house was made, brought the deed of February 4, 1902, to her, and represented to her that it was the contract setting out the terms under which they had agreed to build the house, and was not a deed, and that, being ignorant, and relying upon the representation so made that it was only a contract in terms and not a deed, she signed the deed; that appellants in July afterwards came to her and told her that they were not able to build the house; that soon thereafter she ascertained that she had signed a deed to the appellants to the tract of land, and she then demanded of them a reconveyance; that appellants reconveyed to her one of the lots and were to pay the full value of the two other lots, but that she has not been paid by them for the two lots sold to the other persons; that she received the deed in reconveyance as a partial settlement of the transaction, and with the understanding that the appellants were to pay in money the actual value for the lots sold by them. Appellants claim that they were ready and willing to build the house, but that appellee Mary Anderson, being desirous to annul the contract of building, they and the appellees agreed in settlement of the conveyance of the land that the appellants should reconvey the lot then in possession to appellees and pay $30 in cash as the value of the two lots conveyed away, and that appellants executed and delivered the deed and paid the money in full settlement, all of which was received by appellees in full...