Freeman v. Anderson, 1956.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 1956.,1956. |
| Citation | 119 S.W.2d 1081 |
| Parties | FREEMAN v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Limestone County, Seventy-Seventh District; H. F. Kirby, Judge.
Suit by A. W. Anderson against Ethel Wynn Freeman, individually and as executrix of the estate of H. C. Freeman, deceased, for damages for failure to deliver to the plaintiff land to which the plaintiff was given a warranty deed. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Bradley & Bradley, of Groesbeck, and W. M. White, Jr., of Mexia, for appellant.
L. W. Shepperd, of Groesbeck, for appellee.
A. W. Anderson brought this suit in the district court against Ethel Wynn Freeman, individually and as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, H. C. Freeman, alleging that H. C. Freeman conveyed to Anderson 100 acres of land by general warranty deed; that "although the recited consideration in said deed was $1000.00, said land was of the reasonable cash market value of $2000.00, and the recital of $1000.00 as the consideration for said land was merely for convenience and was not and does not represent the true consideration and value of said land, which is as aforesaid the sum of $2000.00;" that "Freeman did not have title to said land and wholly failed to deliver possession thereof to plaintiff to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $2000.00, the consideration for and the reasonable cash market value of said land." He further alleged that but for the failure of Freeman to deliver possession of the land he would have grazed and cultivated the land and would have made a profit therefrom in the sum of $450. He prayed for damages in the sum of $2,450. He did not offer to surrender the title received by him or pray for cancellation of the deed delivered to him by Freeman. After a trial without a jury the court rendered judgment for $1,000 in damages to Anderson and canceled the deed and revested all title conveyed by it in Mrs. Freeman. Mrs. Freeman appealed.
No findings of fact appear in the record, but it seems to be agreed that Addie M. Clark originally owned the 100 acres of land here involved. The Clarks owed Freeman a debt secured by a lien on the land. On April 8, 1935, Freeman recovered judgment against the Clarks for said debt with foreclosure of his lien. On May 7, 1935, order of sale was issued upon such judgment, and on June 4, 1935, the sheriff sold the land to Freeman under said order. On November 21, 1935, Freeman conveyed the land by warranty deed to Anderson for a recited consideration of $1,000, but the record does not otherwise disclose what consideration was actually paid for the land. In the meantime, on May 23, 1935, Mrs. Clark filed an application for proceeding under the Frazier-Lemke Amendment to Sec. 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, and thereafter, on December 17, 1935, the federal district judge issued an order staying all proceedings in said matter for three years. Shortly after the execution and delivery of the deed from Freeman to Anderson, Anderson tried to get possession of the land but was told by Clark to stay off because Freeman did not have the right to possession thereof. Anderson then brought this suit, in March 1936, for damages as above alleged.
The deed from Freeman, conveying the land in question to Anderson, was duly executed and delivered and the purchase price was fully paid. Under these circumstances, the contract for the sale of the land was an executed one. 43 Tex.Jur. 108. In case of an executed contract for the sale of land, mere failure of title in the vendor does not afford a ground for cancellation or rescission in the absence of fraud or mistake or other exceptional circumstances. 7 Tex.Jur. 938; Milby v. Hester, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W. 178; Lamb v. James, 87 Tex. 485, 29 S.W. 647. No fraud, mistake or other exceptional circumstances were asserted in this cause. Therefore, appellee was not entitled to rescind the contract and recover the purchase price. In fact, appellee did not sue for rescission. His suit was clearly one for damages. Since appellee thus elected to affirm the contract and sue for damages for the breach thereof, the trial court could not render judgment for cancellation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider v. Lipscomb County Nat. Farm Loan Ass'n
...other act on the part of either the grantee or the claimant. * * *" That rule was reaffirmed by the Waco court in Freeman v. Anderson, Tex. Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 1081, 1083. The authorities correctly apply that identical principle to cases in which title is in the United States or in a state......
-
Centex Corp. v. Dalton
...347 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1978, no writ); Whitmarsh v. Buckley, 324 S.W.2d 298, 303 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1959, no writ); Freeman v. Anderson, 119 S.W.2d 1081, 1083 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1938, no writ). Neither the Resolution nor the Order was in existence at the time judgment was rendered by......
-
City of Manvel v. Texas Dept. of Health Resources
...Houston (14th Dist.) 1971, no writ); Henslee v. State, 375 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1963, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Freeman v. Anderson, 119 S.W.2d 1081, 1083 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1938, no writ); Yeager v. Bradley, 246 S.W. 688, 690 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1922) writ ref'd per curiam, 11......
-
Reynolds v. City of Alice
...2278 and 2281, R.S.1925, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. arts. 2278, 2281; Rules Nos. 84 and 85 for the District Courts of Texas; Freeman v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 1081. The motion is in all things sustained, and said instruments are ordered stricken from the On the Merits. This is an appe......