Carleton v. Lombardi

• Decision Date: 12 June 1891
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: CARLETON <I>et al.</I> v. LOMBARDI.

16 S.W. 1081

CARLETON et al. v. LOMBARDI.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 12, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Williamson county; W. M. KEY, Judge.

Action of trespass to try title by C. Lombardi against Fred Carleton and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

N. G. Shelley and Fred Carleton, for appellants. Fisher & Townes and Rector, Thomson & Rector, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

This was an action of trespass to try title, brought by the appellee. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and the statute of limitations of five years. F. W. Chandler was the common source of title, and the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to show such a title under him as required a judgment in his favor, unless it was defeated by evidence of a superior right in the defendants. The case of the defendants depended upon their showing, either that the defendant Carleton was a purchaser for value and without notice, or that he was entitled to the benefit of the five-year statute of limitations. F. W. Chandler conveyed the land to Samuel H. Mills by his deed dated the 15th day of March, 1869, containing a clause of general warranty. This deed, through which the plaintiff claims, was not recorded until the 9th day of February, 1878. On the 27th day of December, 1876, for the expressed consideration of $640, the said F. W. Chandler made to the defendant Carleton a quitclaim deed conveying to him, without warranty, all of his "right, title, interest, and claim in and to" said tract of land. The evidence should sufficiently establish that Carleton purchased without notice of the first deed, and that he paid for the land a valuable consideration. In the case of Harrison v. Boring, 44 Tex. 262, it was said by this court that "not only the terms of the deed, but the adequacy of the price given, and other circumstances attending the transaction, may serve to show, when brought in evidence, whether the purchaser bought the land, or bought merely the title." Giving to Carleton the benefit of this rule, we can find nothing in the evidence to aid the sale to him, or to show that it was other than what the terms of the deed indicate, — a sale of the chance of Chandler's title. Carleton testified that he paid the consideration for the land in controversy with other land, but that he did not know with what lands he made the payment. As he stated neither the quantity, quality, nor the value of the land conveyed by him in exchange, he failed to aid in giving character to...