Daniel v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 12 February 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 121
• Parties: DANIEL <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> BRIDGES <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

11 S.W. 121

DANIEL et al.v.

BRIDGES et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 12, 1889.

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Wise county; E. P. MARSHALL, Special Judge.

Owsley & Walker, for appellants. J. C. Kearby and R. D. Coughamour, for appellees.

HOBBY, J.

This was an action of trespass to try title, brought by James and Jackson Bridges against Jesse Duren, in 1859, to recover an undivided one-half interest in a league and labor of land granted to the father of plaintiffs, James Bridges, and situated in Denton county. Duren died, and his administrator became a party. A. B. Hardin and C. Q. Hailey also were joined as defendants in the suits. The appellant Daniel was made a defendant in 1870, and appellants Henry Norton, John Galloway, William Brown, G. N. Brown, and others were made defendants in 1882. Duren claimed title to 4,025 acres of the land, under a deed alleged to have been executed to him by James Bridges, the patentee, in 1852. Hardin and the heirs of Hailey claim 2,000 acres of the land, under a bond for title executed by Duren to them in December, 1853, and allege that they had no notice of any prior conveyance by Bridges of the land. The plaintiffs claim that the land was the community property of their father, James Bridges, and their mother, Elizabeth Bridges, his wife, and sue as her heirs to recover her undivided half. The appellants answered by a general denial, pleas of the statute of limitation of 3, 5, and 10 years, and appellant Daniel suggested valuable improvements in good faith of the value of $9,490. The claims of a number of the defendants appear to have been adjusted, pending the suit, by decrees agreed upon between them and the plaintiffs and Hardin and Hailey. These decrees vested in the defendants named in them title to about 1,207 acres of the league and labor. The appellants, however, seem to have no connection with them. The suit was discontinued as to a number of the other defendants. A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs Jackson Bridges and A. B. Hardin, and the heirs of C. Q. Hailey, and other defendants, against the defendants William Daniels, W. Brown, G. N. Brown, Henry Norton, John Galloway, Bynum & Rodgers, and others, for the recovery of about 3,398 acres of the league and labor. From this judgment this appeal is prosecuted, and the question involved is, as we understand, under the agreement filed herein, the title to the 580-acre tract in the north-east corner of the survey claimed by appellants. The plaintiffs Jackson and James Bridges claim that the land was the community property of James Bridges and his wife, Elizabeth Bridges, and that they were the only heirs at law of said James and Elizabeth, and as such entitled to one-half as the community interest of their mother. The land was granted to James Bridges by virtue of certificate No. 242, issued in February, 1838, by the board of land commissioners of San Augustine county. Duren, who was originally sued, derived his title to 4,025 acres from James Bridges, Jr., the patentee, under a deed alleged to have been executed by said Bridges to him in February, 1852. The defendants Hardin and Hailey claim 2,000 acres under a bond for title, made by Duren in December, 1853, to be selected out of the 4,025 acres conveyed by Bridges. As stated before, the land was patented to James Bridges, the father of the plaintiffs, on the 22d February, 1847, by virtue of the head-right certificate referred to. Appellees Hardin and Hailey claimed that they had purchased the same from Jesse Duren in December, 1853, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of any prior conveyance; that Duren had purchased from the patentee in a like manner in February, 1852. The defendants in the court below (appellants here) offered in evidence, to show a superior outstanding title to this land, a deed executed by the patentee Bridges to James M. Ardry and Charlton Payne, dated April 22, 1846, duly acknowledged on the same day by the grantor, before two justices of the peace of San Augustine county. This deed described the land conveyed as 580 acres lying upon the head-waters of the Trinity river, in the county of Fannin, to which he was entitled by virtue of certificate No. 242, issued by the board of land commissioners of San Augustine county, dated February 11, 1838, surveyed on October 26, 1841, and describing the land conveyed as lying on the north-east corner of said league and labor survey, and to be surveyed from said north-east corner in a square running equal distances on the north and east lines. To the introduction of this deed in evidence to prove a superior outstanding title the objections by the appellees were that it was an equitable title, and the defendants had not connected themselves therewith; that it was a stale demand, and defendants Hardin and Hailey had no notice of said deed; and that no persons had claimed or asserted title to the land under the same. These objections were sustained by the court, and the deed excluded, upon the ground, as stated in the explanation made of the bill of exceptions by the court, that the...