Dobkins v. Kuykendall
Citation | 16 S.W. 743 |
Parties | DOBKINS v. KUYKENDALL <I>et al.</I> |
Decision Date | 22 May 1891 |
Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Erath county; C. K. BELL, Judge.
C. J. Shapard and Jas. B. Goff, for appellant. Thos. B. King, for appellees.
The appellant brought this suit to recover a tract of land which is represented on the following sketch by the triangle, the corners of which are marked by the letters D, E, F:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The plaintiff, being the owner of the tract, the corners of which are marked on the sketch by the letters A, B, D, in June, 1884, executed and delivered to defendant Simon Kuykendall a deed which described the granted premises as follows: In the summer or fall of 1882 the defendant, who was the head of a family, (having a wife and children,) but who had no other land, selected a place for a house, laid a stone foundation, and hauled logs for the purpose of erecting a dwelling upon it, intending to make it his home. Not being able to complete his improvements, he rented land elsewhere, intending to make money to build a frame dwelling. Some time in 1883 he sold 80 acres of the land to one Gillette. This is represented upon the map by the letters A, B, E, F. The plaintiff having set up a claim to the land in controversy on the ground that he had not sold it to Kuykendall, the latter, in April, 1883, reconveyed it to him by a quitclaim deed. This deed recited a consideration of $100, but no money was paid or was agreed to be paid. Kuykendall's wife's name was signed to this deed, but it was never acknowledged by her. She denied having signed it. Kuykendall and wife subsequently separated, and their children remained with her. In 1887 she moved upon the land with her children. In 1888 the plaintiff brought this suit against both the husband and the wife. It was in the ordinary form of trespass to try title. The defendants answer that they bought the land intending to make their homestead, and made preparations to improve it for that purpose; that they had never abandoned it, and had not, since the purchase, owned any other land. She also pleaded, in effect, that when defendant Simon Kuykendall bought of plaintiff he intended to buy, and plaintiff intended to sell, all the land lying between the Powers, the Meisenhelter, the Keith, and Lauderdale surveys, and prayed that, if the deed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kimball v. Salisbury
...... can be made.". . . To the. same effect are the following cases: Dobkins v. Kuykendahl, 16 S.W. 743; Schofield v. Hopkins, . 61 Wis. 370, 372; Deville v. Widoe, 64 Mich. 593;. Robinson v. Swearington, 17 S.W. 365; ......
-
Stevenson v. Wilson, 1897.
...the property definitely tending of themselves to show such intention and the good faith and reality thereof." Citing Dobkins v. Kuykendall, 81 Tex. 180, 183, 16 S.W. 743, and the Gebhard No rule of law is better established than the one stated by the various authorities but generally in som......
- Stroud v. Loper
-
In re Moore, Bankruptcy No. 187-10247-11
...(digging a well); Burton v. Schwartz, 36 S.W. 2d 1066 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1931, writ dism'd) (excavating); Dobkins v. Kuykendall, 81 Tex. 180, 16 S.W. 743 (1891) (constructing a foundation); Bell v. Greathouse, 20 Tex.Civ.App. 478, 49 S.W. 258 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1899, no writ) (con......