Davis v. Jones
Citation | 149 S.W. 727 |
Parties | DAVIS et al. v. JONES.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Decision Date | 06 April 1912 |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hardeman County; S. P. Huff, Judge.
Action by Thomas Jones against Mary B. Davis and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
A. M. John and Decker & Clarke, all of Quanah, for appellants. Jos. H. Aynesworth, of Childress, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendants below from a judgment rendered by the district court of Hardeman county, in favor of plaintiff below, foreclosing a lien on certain lands in Hardeman county claimed by appellants.
The record shows that appellee herein filed suit in the district court of Hardeman county on December 8, 1910, against appellants to foreclose an alleged lien on the property hereinafter described for the payment of a judgment which appellee had recovered years before against one H. C. Davis, deceased, alleging substantially the recovery by appellee of the judgment against H. C. Davis and R. E. Richmond on July 3, 1901, in the county court of Childress county, Tex., in cause No. 61 on the civil docket of said court for the sum of $464.60; allegation was made of due and legal filing, recording, and indexing of an abstract of said judgment in Hardeman county about July 3, 1901, whereby a lien was fixed on the lands in controversy; allegation was also made of the issuance of an execution on said judgment on July 22, 1901, which was duly and legally returned, thereby keeping said judgment alive under the law for 10 years from that date. Allegation was then made of the death of H. C. Davis and that all the defendants held and claimed as heirs, devisees, or distributes of H. C. Davis, who it is alleged actually owned the lands at the time of the abstracting of said judgment and at all times thereafter.
That on October 8, 1904, in cause No. 627, styled Thomas Jones v. Minnie Humphreys, on the docket of the district court of Hardeman county, judgment was rendered canceling and annulling plaintiff's alleged judgment lien; allegation being made that said last-mentioned judgment was based on false and perjured testimony of H. C. Davis, his wife, Mary B. Davis, and Minnie Humphreys, to the effect that the lands in controversy were owned exclusively by Minnie Humphreys, and H. C. Davis did not own them or any interest in them when the abstract of judgment was filed, recorded, and indexed, or at any time thereafter; allegation is then made that in truth and in fact the real equitable and beneficial ownership of the said lands had at all times been in H. C. Davis as his separate property or in H. C. Davis and his wife, Mary B. Davis, as their community property. Allegation is then made that thereafter H. C. Davis having died intestate, in cause No. 764 on the docket of the district court of Hardeman county, styled Mary B. Davis v. Willis A. Jones et al. (said Willis A. Jones having in the meantime married Minnie Humphreys), judgment was rendered parceling and dividing the lands in controversy among defendants in this suit, and that all such rights as were awarded all the parties defendant herein in said last-mentioned judgment were as heirs, legatees, and distributors under H. C. Davis, then deceased. Allegation is then made of the indebtedness of said H. C. Davis to appellee on the judgment in said cause No. 61 at the time of the death of H. C. Davis, the absence of any administration on his estate, and allegation is made that Davis died seised and possessed of the beneficial interest in the lands, and allegation is made of possession of the lands by appellants as heirs, legatees, and distributors under said H. C. Davis, deceased. A want of any legal division of said lands among defendants was then alleged, and a lien was alleged on all the lands to secure the payment of plaintiff's debt. Prayer is then made to cancel and set aside the judgment rendered in cause No. 627, and for a foreclosure of appellee's lien on all the said lands as against each and all of the appellants.
Appellants answered by a general demurrer and special exceptions, a general denial, a special denial that they or either of them held or claimed under H. C. Davis, and then alleged that they held and claimed under Minnie Humphreys, pleaded the statute of limitation of four years, and appellants Clarke and Decker pleaded that they were innocent purchasers of the interest claimed by them in said lands.
By supplemental petition filed on March 9, 1911, appellee alleged in substance, in avoidance of the statutes of limitations pleaded by appellants, that through the fraud of appellants and those through whom they claimed, the facts entitling appellee to have the judgment in cause No. 627 set aside, had been concealed from him until said facts were finally developed and disclosed in the disposition of cause No. 764 herein mentioned, and that through no fault of his he failed to make such discovery earlier. By trial amendment, appellants pleaded the judgment in cause No. 627 in estoppel and in bar of appellee's alleged right to a judgment lien on the land.
The cause was tried below before the court without the intervention of a jury, and the following judgment was rendered:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ralls v. Ralls
...in procuring the judgment as would justify the court in setting it aside for fraud. See also Fisk v. Miller, 20 Tex. 579; Davis v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 149 S. W. 727. So in this case, the fraud, if there was any, prevented the wife from having a real trial of her rights. The agreement its......
-
Blackman v. Blackman
...cases, a few of which are: Ralls v. Ralls, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S. W. 688; Walker v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 404; Davis v. Jones, Tex.Civ. App., 149 S.W. 727, writ refused; Colvin v. Colvin, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 910; Reed & Reed v. McKee, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 717; Hammond v. Atlee......
-
Lunt v. Lunt
...Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W. 442; Bonner v. Pearson, Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 930; Avocato v. Dell'Ara, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W. 443; Davis v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W. 727; Ellis v. Lamb-McAshan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W. 241; Ralls v. Ralls, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W. 688; Reed v. Bryant, Tex.Civ. ......
-
Stanley v. Spann
...Lambright et al., 29 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 68 S. W. 713; Avocato et al. v. Dell'Ara et ux. (Tex. Civ. App.) 84 S. W. 443; Davis v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 149 S. W. 727. "It is well settled in this state that a losing litigant may obtain a rehearing after the term, when it is shown by specific......