Douglas v. Davis
| Decision Date | 23 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1524.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Parties | DOUGLAS v. DAVIS et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; Geo. G. O'Brien, Judge.
Action of trespass to try title by Annie Douglas against Monk Davis and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Gordon, Lawhon, Davidson & Sharfstein, of Beaumont, for appellant.
W. W. Cruse, of Beaumont, for appellees.
This is an action of trespass to try title, filed by appellant, Annie Douglas, in one of the district courts of Jefferson county, against appellees Monk Davis and his wife, Josephine Davis, to recover the title and possession of lot No. 7 in block No. 4 of the First addition to the North addition to the city of Beaumont. Appellant's petition is in the usual form of an action of trespass to try title.
Appellees answered by general demurrer, general denial, and then specially averred, in substance, that appellee Josephine Davis had title to the lot sued for by appellant under a parol gift from one Millie Profit, and also under the last will and testament of Millie Profit, by which appellees contend the lot in controversy was devised by the testatrix, Millie Profit, to appellee Josephine Davis.
It is admitted by the parties that Millie Profit is the common source of title, and the record shows that appellant was entitled to recover the lot sued for by her unless appellee Josephine Davis acquired title to the same under a parol gift to her from Millie Profit, or under the will of Millie Profit, as pleaded by appellees in their answer.
The judgment in this case is based upon the following facts:
Millie Profit, an old negro woman, prior to the time of the claimed parol gift to Josephine Davis, was admittedly the owner of lot No. 7 in block No. 4 of the First addition to the North addition of the city of Beaumont, which, as we have stated, is the property in controversy in this suit. Appellees, in support of their allegations of parol gift of the lot from Millie Profit to Josephine Davis, introduced evidence sufficient to show that about the 17th of October, 1924, Millie Profit made a parol gift of the lot in controversy to Josephine Davis, and the evidence was further sufficient to show that Millie Profit put Josephine Davis and her husband, Monk Davis, in possession of the property, and that a few days after Josephine Davis and her husband had taken possession of the property, which was then improved property, having a dwelling house upon it, Millie Profit moved into the house with Josephine Davis and her husband, and remained there with them until her death, which occurred about the 20th of March, 1925. The evidence was further sufficient to show that Josephine Davis claimed the property as her own upon the faith of the parol gift from Millie Profit.
On October 30, 1924, Millie Profit made a will, by which she devised several pieces of property in the city of Beaumont to different devisees, and in paragraph 4 of the will she devised to appellee Josephine Davis (named in the will as Josephine Thomas, which was her name before she married Davis) lot No. 17 in block No. 4 of the First addition to the North addition of the city of Beaumont. This will was in due time filed for probate and admitted to probate in the probate court of Jefferson county.
The case was tried with a jury, and in answer to special issues the jury found:
(a) That Millie Profit, by her will, intended to bequeath to Josephine Davis the lot in controversy in this case.
(b) That about October 17, 1924, Millie Profit made a parol gift of the lot in controversy to Josephine Davis.
(c) That Millie Profit surrendered possession of the lot in controversy to Josephine Davis, under the parol gift.
(d) That, in an effort to make more certain the gift of the lot, Millie Profit executed the will of October 30, 1924.
(e) That Josephine Davis, relying upon the parol gift of the lot in controversy, in good faith, before the death of Millie Profit, made valuable and permanent improvements thereon.
(f) That the value of the improvements was $30.
(g) That the reasonable rental value of the lot from March 20, 1925 (date of Millie Profit's death), to the date of the trial was $180. This was a period of about fifteen months.
(h) That the reasonable rental value of the property in controversy from the time appellees moved thereon to the date of Millie Profit's death was $60. This was a period of five months.
Upon the verdict of the jury as shown, the trial court rendered judgment denying appellant recovery of the property in controversy and quieting the title thereto in the appellee Josephine Davis, and it is from this judgment that this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellant assails the judgment of the trial court on several grounds, some of which relate to the ruling of the trial court on the pleadings and some relate to the action of the trial court in the admission of evidence over appellant's objection.
Appellant's first main contention is, in substance, that appellees acquired no title to the property in controversy under the claimed parol gift from Millie Profit to Josephine Davis, because, among other things, the evidence was wholly insufficient to show that appellees, in reliance upon the parol gift, made valuable and permanent improvements upon the property, with the knowledge of Millie Profit, so as to take the gift out of the statute of frauds. In disposing of this contention, we make the following statement, in substance, of the material evidence bearing upon this point:
The evidence shows, or was sufficient to warrant a finding, that Millie Profit, if she made a parol gift of the property in controversy to Josephine Davis, as claimed by appellees, made such gift about October 17, 1924, and that about October 24th following Josephine Davis and her husband moved into the dwelling house that was then on the lot in controversy, and a few days thereafter Millie Profit moved into the house with Davis and his wife. The evidence further shows that there was an old garden fence on the lot, which was out of repair, and that during the month of December, 1924, and perhaps a part of the month of January, 1925, at different times appellees repaired, and as Josephine Davis testified patched up, this old garden fence; that her husband, Monk Davis, was engaged at different times in making these repairs on the fence for a period of about eight days. The evidence further shows that appellees put some blocks under the gallery of the house, and also that they cleaned out an old well that was on the premises when they moved there, and that Monk Davis paid a helper $2.50 while engaged in cleaning out this well. The material with which the old garden fence was repaired was on the premises when appellees moved there, but the evidence does not disclose where the blocks came from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Douglas
...title by Annie Douglas against Monk Davis and wife. A judgment for defendants was reversed and rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals (300 S. W. 203), and defendants bring error. Judgments of district court and Court of Civil Appeals both reversed, and cause W. W. Cruse, of Beaumont, for pl......