Dalton v. Davis
| Decision Date | 11 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1027-4924.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Citation | 1 S.W.2d 571 |
| Parties | DALTON v. DAVIS et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Sam Davis against Crate Dalton and others. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (294 S. W. 1115), and the named defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
A. J. Smith, of Anson, and Callaway, Dalton & Callaway, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Murchison & Davis, of Haskell, for defendants in error.
With an exception to be noted and a supplement to be made, the case is properly and sufficiently stated in the opinions of the Court of Civil Appeals. 294 S. W. 1115. The exception is that Davis did not bring suit "in trespass to try title." The supplement is that Mrs. Davis did not file a pleading of any kind and Mr. Davis did not file anything except his original petition, although Dalton by proper cross-action sued Davis and wife in statutory trespass to try title.
The suit of Davis was to cancel the sheriff's deed and remove the cloud thereof. Since ordinarily courts do not entertain jurisdiction of moot cases, a claim of interest of some kind in the land was manifestly a prerequisite to relief in that suit. But there is patent mistake in the assumption that fee simple or otherwise incontestable title in Davis was essential to the relief prayed by him. Obviously, therefore, the possibility of title or right in Dalton, independent of the sheriff's deed, is not foreclosed by its cancellation. 38 Cyc. 1194-1196.
Ownership in fee simple, however, was averred by Dalton. Answer ("plea of not guilty" or otherwise) was not made by Mrs. Davis at all or by Mr. Davis except as his petition would be taken therefor. As the pleading stood, then, but a part of Dalton's essential averments were answered by one defendant therein and none of them by the other. As remarked, Dalton might have title or right independent of the sheriff's deed, and hence outside the scope of Davis' pleading. It results: (a) Dalton's cross-action advanced a perfect defense to Davis' claim and more, but Davis' petition (considered as an answer) presented but a partial and imperfect defense to the cross-action; (b) the other defendant in the cross-action pleaded no defense at all.
The state of the evidence is not important, for whatever was proved the judgment was required to "conform to the pleadings" (article 2211, R. S. 1925), and, to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Rodriguez
...96 L.Ed. 687 (1952), he is not required to trace his title to either the sovereign or to a common source, as argued by defendant. Dalton v. Davis, 1 S.W.2d 571 (Tex.Comm'n App.1928, holding approved); Texas Development Co. v. Hodges, supra; Lee v. Grupe, 223 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarka......
-
Lee v. Grupe
...is asserting some right, title, interest or claim thereto. We sustain that contention. 34 Tex.Jur., 816, 817, 834. In Dalton v. Davis, Tex.Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 571, 572, the Supreme Court says: "A claim of interest of some kind in the land was manifestly a prerequisite to relief in that suit.......
-
Parker v. Pollard
...this action. Hoffman v. Davis, 128 Tex. 503, 100 S.W.2d 94 (1937); Logan v. Thomason, 146 Tex. 37, 202 S.W.2d 212 (1947); Dalton v. Davis, 1 S.W.2d 571 (Tex.Comm'n App.1928, holding approved); City of Waco v. Akard, 252 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1952, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Hollar v. Jowe......
-
Bell v. Ott
...equity and right to relief. Katz v. Rodriquez, 563 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Dalton v. Davis, 1 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Tex.Comm.App.1928, holding approved); Lee v. Grupe, 223 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1949, no Defendants also assert and......