Easterling v. Murphey

• Decision Date: 25 October 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 704.)
• Citation: 11 S.W.2d 329
• Parties: EASTERLING et al. v. MURPHEY et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

11 S.W.2d 329

EASTERLING et al. v. MURPHEY et al.

(No. 704.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

October 25, 1928.

Rehearing Denied December 6, 1928.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; Hawkins Scarborough, Judge.

Suit by Jessie Easterling and others against J. M. Murphey and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and rendered.

Holland, Bartlett, Thornton & Chilton, of Dallas, for appellants.

W. J. Bryant, of Wortham, and Davis, Jester & Tarver, of Corsicana, for appellees.

STANFORD, J.

This suit is by the heirs of Leroy Easterling in trespass to try title to an undivided half interest in 77 acres of land, and for damages, and to recover their proportionate part of certain money received by appellees for an oil lease on said land. Appellees pleaded not guilty, and the 3, 5, 10, and 25 years' statutes of limitation. Appellants, in a supplemental petition, pleaded minority of some of appellants, and the service of Leroy Easterling in the United States navy in avoidance of the pleas of limitation. The case was tried before the court without a jury on an agreed statement of facts. The court, at the request of appellants, also filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court rendered judgment for appellees, and appellants have duly appealed and present the record for review.

Under their first proposition, appellants contend, in effect, that under the evidence they were entitled to recover title to an undivided interest of 27 acres in the 77-acre tract. The agreed statement of facts shows, and the court found, that the 77 acres of land was conveyed by T. D. Bounds to G. W. Bounds on July 30, 1877; that on this date G. W. Bounds and Hannah Bounds were husband and wife, and that 50 acres of said 77 acres was a gift from T. D. Bounds to his son, G. W. Bounds, and that 27 acres of said 77 acres represented land Hannah Bounds had inherited from her parents. So 50 acres of the 77 acres became the separate property of G. W. Bounds, and 27 acres of same became the separate property of his wife, Hannah Bounds. The wife, Hannah Bounds, died intestate in October, 1878, and left surviving her G. W. Bounds, her husband, and Rosa Bounds, her only child, an infant about a month old. Rosa Bounds grew to womanhood and married Sam Easterling in October, 1895. In September, 1897, the said Rosa (Bounds) Easterling died intestate and left surviving her husband, Sam Easterling, and one child, Leroy Easterling, who was born September 19, 1897. Leroy Easterling's name was changed to Roy Bounds, and in this name he enlisted in the United States navy on January 2, 1917, and served there until January 18, 1921, on which date he was honorably discharged. He died July 25, 1921, in Freestone county, Tex., intestate and without issue, but left a surviving wife, Emma Bounds. This suit was brought by all of the heirs of Roy Bounds. The trial court found that appellees Murphey and wife were entitled to recover the land under the 3, 5, 10, and 25 years' statutes of limitation. If there is evidence supporting the above finding as to either statute of limitation, then the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

G. W. Bounds, on November 25, 1889, traded the 77 acres to T. A. Bounds for 125½ acres, the deed reciting the following consideration:

"The sum of $450.00 paid by T. A. Bounds, as follows: Part payment for 85½ acres of land out of 125½ acre tract," etc.

Said deed, in describing the land, contained the following recitals:

"One-half of 77 acres of land * * * the other half to be deeded to T. A. Bounds when Rosa May Bounds, the minor heir, becomes of age. When said title is perfected to said T. A. Bounds, then the said T. A. Bounds * * * is to perfect title to the 40 acres of land reserved out of the 125½ acre tract. * * * The said T. A. Bounds to take immediate possession of said 77 acre tract, to pay taxes and receive the benefits of same."

Fieldnotes of the entire 77-acre tract are given. Said recitations in this deed conclude as follows:

"The minor's half of 77 acre tract reserved above is to be equal in value, including improvements, as the 40 acres reserved out of a 125½ acre tract this day deeded to me by T. A. Bounds."

This deed was filed for record December 22, 1890. On October 15, 1890, T. A. Bounds executed a deed to T. F. Castles, said deed containing the following description:

"All that certain one-half of 77 acres of land * * * the other half to be deeded to T. F. Castles by G. W. Bounds when Rosa May Bounds, the minor heir of G. W. Bounds, becomes of age. When said title is perfected to said T. F. Castles by G. W. Bounds, then the said Castles * * * is to perfect title to 40 acres of land reserved by T. A. Bounds out of 125½ acre tract * * * conveyed to the said Castles in this deed for the purpose of securing the title of the minor's half. The said Castles to take immediate possession of said 77 acre tract, to pay taxes and receive the benefits of same and convey title to G. W. Bounds to 40 acres in Ford Survey when title to minor's half is perfected."

This deed contains the same fieldnotes of the 77-acre tract as in deed from G. W. Bounds to T. A. Bounds. Then follows a warranty deed from G. W. Bounds to T. F. Castles, dated December 29, 1898, filed February 3, 1899, recorded in volume 90, p. 216, Navarro County Deed Records, reciting as consideration 40 acres of land, a part of the H. Ford survey in Navarro county, Tex., deeded on the same date to G. W. Bounds by T. F. Castles. This deed from G. W. Bounds to T. F. Castles contained the following description:

"27 acres of land, being the undivided interest of Leroy Easterling, a minor, and 11½ acres my own, the two being one-half undivided interest in 77 acres of the Turner Smith Survey in said county, bounded as follows * * * containing 77 acres more or less."

From the agreed statement upon which this case was tried, and the findings of the court, it is evident that, of the 77 acres deeded by T. D. Bounds to G. W. Bounds, 50 acres of same was the separate property of G. W. Bounds and 27 acres of same was the separate property of his wife, Hannah Bounds, and on the death of Hannah Bounds, intestate, her 27-acre undivided interest, subject to the life estate of G. W. Bounds in one-third of said 27 acres, vested in her only child, Rosa May Bounds, who afterwards married S. H. Easterling; that on the death of Rosa May Easterling, intestate, her 27-acre interest, subject to the life estate of G. W. Bounds in one-third of same, descended and vested in her only child, Leroy Easterling, known as Roy Bounds. So the only part of said 77 acres in controversy here is an undivided interest of 27 acres. The reference to the minor's interest in the deeds from G. W. Bounds to T. A. Bounds, and from T. A. Bounds to T. F. Castles as a half interest, could not and did not have the effect to increase the fixed and established interest of said minor. There is no element of estoppel in this case. However, the recitations in the deeds above are important, in that they show the minor's interest was recognized, and so there was no adverse holding shown and limitation did not in any event run in favor of T. A. Bounds, nor T. F. Castles.

There is another reason why we think the 25-year statute of limitation never began to run in favor of appellees nor any of their predecessors in title. As we understand the 25-year statute of limitation (article 5519), its purpose was, where one holds lands by peaceable, adverse claim of right in good faith under a regular chain of title, with all the muniments of such title duly recorded, for a period of 25 years, such party shall be deemed to have good title, regardless of the undisclosed rights of minors, married women, and all others under such disabilities, and against whom our 3, 5, and 10 years' statutes would not run. The court found in this case that the title had passed out of the state, and that T. D. Bounds was the common source. The deed from T. D. Bounds to G. W. Bounds was regular, conveying the 77 acres. The deed from G. W. Bounds to T. A. Bounds conveyed a half interest in said 77 acres, and recited, in effect, that the other half interest would be by him deeded to T. A. Bounds when said Rosa May Bounds, a minor, becomes of age. The deed from T. A. Bounds to T. F. Castles conveys a half interest in said 77 acres and recites, in effect, the other half interest will be conveyed by G. W. Bounds to T. F. Castles when Rosa May Bounds, the minor heir of G. W. Bounds, becomes of age. On December 29, 1898, G. W. Bounds did execute a deed to T. F. Castles, containing the following language in the description:

"27 acres of land, being the undivided interest of Leroy Easterling, a minor, and 11½ acres my own, the two being one-half undivided interest in 77 acres of the Turner Smith Survey in said county, bounded as follows:"

Then follows the same description of the 77 acres as in the deed from T. D. Bounds to G. W. Bounds. The above three deeds were all duly recorded and constituted notice to T. A. Bounds and all subsequent purchasers, including appellees, that the title to at least 27 acres of said land was outstanding in a minor, and that the deed from G. W. Bounds purporting to convey the 27 acres belonging to Leroy Easterling, a minor, was ineffectual to convey any title to same, but was sufficient to, and did, convey the title to the 11½ acres owned by G. W. Bounds, and his said life estate in one-third of said 27 acres. Stratton et al. v. Robinson, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 285, 67 S. W. 539. While the record shows a regular chain of title in appellees to 50 acres of said 77 acres, and the life estate of G. W. Bounds, who is still living, in one-third of the 27 acres, it failed to show a "regular chain of title" in appellees to the 27 acres, and in view of the state of the title as shown by recorded deeds, appellees could not claim in good faith to own the 27...