Davidson v. Renfro

Citation114 S.W. 449
PartiesDAVIDSON v. RENFRO et al.
Decision Date05 December 1908
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Appeal from District Court, Sabine County; W. B. Powell, Judge.

Action by D. E. Renfro and others against J. O. Davidson. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Davis & Davis and Tom C. Davis, for appellant.

PLEASANTS, C. J.

This is an action of trespass to try title, brought by the appellees against the appellant and a number of other defendants to recover the O. H. Lindsey one-fourth league of land in Sabine county.

The appellant disclaimed as to all of the land sued for except a tract of 67½ acres, which is fully described in his answer, as to which he pleaded not guilty, and also pleaded title under the 3, 5, and 10 year statutes of limitation. He further pleaded that L. L. Loggins, under whom appellees claim, purchased the 807 acres of land, of which the 67½ acres is a part, as the agent of S. W. Norsworthy, to whom he afterwards conveyed said 807 acres, and who is one of the remote vendors of appellees. All of the assignments of error, as shown by the propositions submitted thereunder, are predicated upon the assumption that M. A. Morris is the common source of title, and it is therefore unnecessary to set out appellees' chain of title in full. The 807-acre tract was conveyed to M. A. Morris during the life of his wife, who died in April, 1881. On October 15, 1881, Morris conveyed it to L. L. Loggins, and thereafter it passed from Loggins to Norsworthy, from Norsworthy to Grigsby, and from Grigsby to appellee Renfro. Appellant claims under a conveyance from one of the heirs of Mrs. Morris. After the death of Mrs. Morris her children took possession of one-half of the 807-acre tract, and partitioned it between themselves. The undisputed evidence shows that the half so taken by Mrs. Morris' heirs was of no greater value than the remaining half of said tract, and the 67½ acres claimed by appellant is one of the subdivisions of the half of said tract which was partitioned between said heirs. The evidence further shows that Loggins, at the time he purchased from M. A. Morris, knew of the claim of Mrs. Morris' children to an undivided one-half interest in the land. There is, however, no evidence that Norsworthy, Grigsby, or the appellee Renfro had any notice of said claim at the time of their respective purchases, nor is there any evidence that either of said purchasers was not a purchaser for value. Such being the evidence the court charged the jury as follows: "The court holds the law to be that L. L. Loggins by the evidence is shown to have purchased the land with notice of the equitable title of the heirs of M. A. Morris' wife, but the evidence fails to show that Norsworthy, or the parties holding under him, had any notice of the equitable title of the children of M. A. Morris and his wife; and, the burden of proof being upon defendants to show that the plaintiff bought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Holland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1945
  • Myers v. Crenshaw
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1938
    ...144; Nicholson v. Slaughter Co., Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W. 716; Foster v. Christensen, Tex.Com.App., 67 S.W.2d 246; Davidson v. Renfro, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 483, 114 S.W. 449; Patty v. Middleton, 82 Tex. 586, 17 S.W. No issue is made that the Daugherty associates did not pay a valuable consideratio......
  • Ruedas v. O'Shea
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 1910
    ...title in the purchaser. Patty v. Middleton, 82 Tex. 586, 17 S. W. 909; Saunders v. Isbell, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 513, 24 S. W. 307; Davidson v. Renfro, 114 S. W. 449; Hensley v. Lewis, 82 Tex. 595, 17 S. W. 913; Steves v. Smith, 107 S. W. 142; Mangum v. White, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 254, 41 S. W. 80;......
  • Toole v. Renfro
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 5, 1908
    ...Reversed and remanded. Davis & Davis and Davis & Davis, for appellant. PLEASANTS, C. J. This is a companion appeal to that of Davidson v. Renfro, 114 S. W. 449, this day decided, and the questions here presented are identical with those discussed and decided in the opinion in the case menti......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT