Doggett v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Parties | PHILO A. J. DOGGETT v. JAMES M. PATTERSON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
It is sufficient if it does not appear from the petition, that a contract for the sale of land, upon which the suit is brought, was not in writing; it is not necessary to allege that such contract was in writing. That is matter of proof. 5 Tex. 512; 12 Tex. 201; 18 Tex. 162; 20 Tex. 174.
A contract to the effect that the plaintiff, who had given bond for title and taken the notes of the vendee for the purchase money, should restore the notes to the vendee and get back his bond, and convey the land to the defendant, who should give his bond to the vendee, and take his note for the purchase money, is not a contract for the sale of land, but merely a circuitous mode of assigning the notes, with the vendor's lien.
Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford.
Suit by appellant against appellee. Petition filed July 1, 1856, as follows:
Your petitioner, Philo A. J. Doggett, who resides in the county of Kauffman and state of Texas, respectfully represents that heretofore, to wit: on the 6th day of June, 1856, he contracted with James M. Patterson, who resides in the county of Dallas and state of Texas, for a certain carriage and two brown horses; that at the time of making said contract your petitioner was the owner and in possession of two promissory notes executed to your petitioner by James Hollingshead and B. P. Hollingshead; one for four hundred and twenty-five dollars, payable on or before the first day of January next; the other for two hundred and thirty-five dollars, payable on or before the first day of April next, making in the aggregate six hundred and sixty dollars, which said note was given as part payment for two tracts of land sold by your petitioner to said James Hollingshead and B. P. Hollingshead, one contract containing 320 acres, patented to Elliott E. Davidson, assignee of Robert Simmons, the other containing 50 acres. For said 320 acre tract, the said James and B. P. Hollingshead, at the time of making said contract with said Patterson, held and still hold the title bond of your petitioner, in which your petitioner has bound himself in the sum of fourteen hundred dollars, to make to said James and B. P. Hollingshead a deed to said tract of 320 acres of land, so soon as the money upon said two notes should be paid.
Upon making and entering into said contract with said Patterson, it was agreed and understood between said Patterson and your petitioner, that, as a part of the consideration for said carriage and horses, your petitioner was to hand back and deliver up unto them, the aforesaid James and B. P. Hollingshead, their said two notes, executed as aforesaid to your petitioner, and cause said James and B. P. Hollingshead to execute to said Patterson two other notes for the said amount of six hundred and sixty dollars, one of which was to be for four hundred and twenty-five dollars, payable on or before the first day of January next; the other for two hundred and thirty dollars, payable on or before the first day of April next. It was also further agreed between said Patterson and your petitioner, that your petitioner was to execute to said Patterson a deed for the 320 acre tract of land, which was a part of the consideration for which said notes were given to said Patterson and for which said James and B. P. Hollingshead, at the time held and still hold the title bond of your petitioner, and was to show to said Patterson a good, clear and legal chain of title from the original grantee of said land down to your petitioner, with the exception of the deed from the original grantee to John H. Thomas; and instead of that deed it was agreed that your petitioner should furnish a statement from the clerk of the county court of Kauffman county, showing that it was on file in the clerk's office of said county.
Your petitioner also, at the time of making said contract with said Patterson, held the deed of Elijah Elgin for the above-named tract of fifty acres of land, which said deed had been properly authenticated, but not recorded. Your petitioner had, prior to making the said contract with the said Patterson, and subsequently to the execution of said deed by said Elgin to your petitioner, sold said 50 acres of land to said James and B. P. Hollingshead, and took their promissory note for two hundred and thirty-five dollars, as a part payment for said land, payable on or before the 1st day of April next.
It was agreed between said Patterson and your petitioner that, as a further consideration for said carriage and horses, your petitioner should give back, deliver up and cancel the said deed from said Elgin, and cause him the said Elgin to execute to him the said Patterson, a deed for said tract of fifty acres of land; and, as a still further consideration for said carriage and horses, it was agreed that your petitioner should execute to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Andersen and Associates v. Jones, 4846
...no connection whatever with the statute of frauds. James v. Fulcord, 5 Tex. 512, 55 Am.Dec. 743; Mead v. Randolph, 8 Tex. 191; Doggett v. Patterson, 18 Tex. 158.' This court in McNeny v. Radford, 70 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1934, 129 Tex. 568, 104 S.W.2d 472), at page 828, 'The la......
-
Friedman v. Suttle
...by our legislature as our own in direct conflict with the Czarnowski case. Miller v. Roberts, 18 Tex. 16, 67 Am. Dec. 688; Doggett v. Patterson, 18 Tex. 158; v. Gilkerson, 10 Tex. 340; Evans v. Hardeman, 15 Tex. 480. Hawkins, Ellinwood & Ross, and Herndon & Norris, for Appellee. The contrac......
-
Gohlman, Lester & Co. v. Griffith
...the petition subject to exception none was presented. Under the allegations made, a written promise could have been proved. Doggett v. Patterson, 18 Tex. 158, 162; Robb v. San Antonio St. Ry. Co., 82 Tex. 392, 395, 18 S. W. 707. In deference to the judgment overruling the plea. we are justi......
-
McKinley v. Wilson
...parties themselves have done, we are constrained to hold that the ruling of the court cannot be supported upon this theory. In Doggett v. Patterson, 18 Tex. 158, it was held that an agreement in effect to assign the vendor's lien is not within the statute. It is there said: "His interest in......