French v. Grenet

• Decision Date: 20 May 1881
• Docket Number: Case No. 4288.
• Parties: JAMES H. FRENCH v. HONORE GRENET.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

57 Tex. 273

JAMES H. FRENCH

v.HONORE GRENET.

Case No. 4288.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 20, 1881.

ERROR from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. H. Noonan.

Trespass to try title to recover of Honore Grenet, defendant in error, and Sam. C. Bennett, a lot of ground in San Antonio, Bexar county, and the improvements thereon.

Grenet answered, alleging that Bennett was only his tenant, and had no interest in the property. He further pleaded not guilty; stale demand, title under the bankrupt assignee of Enoch Jones, and of Ulrich & Co., a firm composed of Ulrich and Enoch Jones; payment of the purchase money to the assignee, and its appropriation by him to the payment of debts of Jones, which were a lien upon the premises; possession in good faith, and payment of large sums for taxes and repairs thereon; two years' limitation under the United States bankrupt law; and want of power in the court below to annul the proceedings of the bankrupt court. He further prayed to be subrogated to the rights of the creditors of Jones, whose debts had been paid with the purchase money, and for judgment for the amount paid for purchase money, and the amount spent for taxes and repairs, and interest, and that no writ of possession issue till such payment should be made.

Plaintiff filed supplemental petition, demurring generally to the answer, and specially to all except the plea of not guilty; set up the coverture and infancy of plaintiffs, denied the existence of any partnership between Ulrich and the executors of Jones, and the right of the latter to continue the partnership; denied that Grenet had expended the amounts claimed by him for repairs, improvements and taxes, and his right to recover anything on that account.

It was shown that the bankruptcy proceedings, as pleaded by defendant, were instituted by creditors of J. Ulrich & Co., who had obtained judgments in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Texas against the executors of Enoch Jones, deceased, upon which judgments executions had issued and levies had been made prior to the institution of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The proof showed that the property in controversy belonged to Enoch Jones, at his death in 1863, and that plaintiffs were his sole heirs and devisees; that Jones left an independent will with three executors, two of whom, Paschal & Newton, qualified; that Jones, at the time of his death, was a member of the firm of J. Ulrich & Co., the other partner being J. Ulrich; that his will provided that the business of the firm should be continued or closed, as the executors and Ulrich should deem best; but that it was not so continued after his death, except for purposes of liquidation; there was no provision in the partnership articles that the partnership might be continued after Jones' death; and Jones, in 1862, published a notice of its dissolution, assuming the debts. On November 2, 1867, certain creditors of Ulrich & Co. petitioned the United States court at Austin to put that firm and the estate of Jones into bankruptcy, and the attorneys for Paschal & Newton, executors of Jones, accepted service of the petition and entered an appearance for them; and on November 4, 1867, the firm and Jones were adjudicated bankrupts, and Fred. Carleton thereafter appointed assignee, and received an assignment under the bankrupt law of all their real and personal property.

The assignee sold, in the course of the bankrupt proceedings, and in compliance with the forms of the bankrupt law, all the real estate of Jones, and amongst other portions of it, the property in controversy, which was bought by Grenet for $16,400, April, 1868. This purchase money Grenet paid to Carleton, who applied it, under orders of the bankrupt court, to the payment of the debts of J. Ulrich & Co., which held a judgment lien on said property, and made a deed to Grenet. Grenet went into possession of the property April 7, 1868, under that deed, and occupied it from thence continually to the commencement of the suit. Grenet paid for repairs on the property, made during his occupancy, $2,218.67, and $3,427.80, taxes thereon; and plaintiffs paid none since the sale. Grenet received as rents, since taking possession, $120 per month, which was the rental value of the property. Plaintiffs sought to recover on the ground that the sale to Grenet was void, because the proceedings in bankruptcy were, so far as the estate of Enoch Jones was concerned, without jurisdiction, and conferred no title. The court gave them judgment for the land and $17,280 rent; but rendered judgment for Grenet for his purchase money, $16,400, with interest at eight per cent. per annum from April 7, 1868, amounting to $15,744, together with $2,218.64, paid by him for improvements, and $3,427.80 paid for taxes; and setting them off against the rents, gave Grenet judgment for the balance, $20,501.44, and decreed that no writ of possession should issue for the property in behalf of plaintiffs till they paid Grenet the amount last above stated, and interest; and allowed plaintiffs twelve months in which to pay it, or the title to vest in Grenet.

Willie & Cleveland, for plaintiffs in error.

I. When a public sale is void for want of jurisdiction in the court ordering it, and, on that ground, the heirs of the party whose property has been sold recover it from the purchaser at such sale, the latter will not be reimbursed for the purchase money, although it was applied by the officer making said sale to the payment of the debts of their ancestor, nor for the money paid by him for taxes and repairs thereon, accruing subsequent to the purchase. Stewart v. Kemp, Galveston term, January 25, 1881; Robson v. Osborne, 13 Tex., 298, 307, 308;Pitts v. Booth, 15 Tex., 453, 454;Rogers v. Bracken, 15 Tex., 564, 568;Howard v. North, 5 Tex., 290;Teas v. McDonald, 13 Tex., 357;Brown v. Lane, 19 Tex., 203;Andrews v. Richardson, 21 Tex., 287; Adams v. Terrell, Tex. Law Jour., vol. 4, No. 20; Freeman on Judgments, sec. 117; Freeman on Void Judicial Sales, secs. 46-51; Richmond v. Marston, 15 Ind., 134;Morris v. Hagle, 37 Ill., 150;Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich., 218.

II. The bankrupt court acquired no jurisdiction of Enoch Jones' estate, either as to subject matter or person, and all its proceedings in said estate, including the order of sale and the sale itself of the property in controversy, were void and liable to collateral attack in the district court of Bexar county. Mason v. Russell's Heirs, 1 Tex., 250; Murchison v. White, 4 Tex. Law Jour., No. 9, p. 729; Horan v. Wahrenberger, 9 Tex., 316;Marks v. Hill, 46 Tex., 345;Hester v. Duprey, 46 Tex., 625;Fisk v. Powell, 9 Tex., 13;Rose v. Newman, 26 Tex., 131;Withers v. Patterson, 27 Tex., 491;Duncan v. Veal, 49 Tex., 603;Barnett v. Pool, 23 Tex., 517;McCoy v. Crawford, 9 Tex., 353; Mosely v. Burrow, 3 Tyler Law Jour., 444; Thouvenin v. Rodriguez, 24 Tex., 468; R. S. U. S., sec. 5090; In re McDonald, 8 Bank. Reg., 247; In re Stevens, 5 Id., 112;In re Doggett, 8 Id., 433;Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall., 457;Knowles v. Gaslight Co., 19 Wall., 58;Williamson v. Berry, 8 How., 540;Elliott v. Perrisol, 1 Pet., 328, 340;Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet., 511;Settlemein v. Sullivan, 7 Otto, 444; Herman on Ex., § 256; Freeman on Judgments, secs. 116, 117, 120, 121, 124, 125; Isett v. Stewart, 80 Ill., 404; Doe v. McDonald, 27 Miss., 610;Sanders v. Rains, 10 Mo., 770; Carson v. McGee, 9 Yerg., 928.

Wae??der & Upson, for defendant in error.

BONNER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

We deduce from the assigned errors the following as the decisive questions in this case:

First. Did the United States district court, sitting in bankruptcy, have jurisdiction over the land in controversy--the same being the individual property of Enoch Jones, then deceased, so that the title passed to appellee Grenet by the sale to him made by virtue of the judgment of that court?

Second. If not, then was Grenet such possessor of the land thereunder in good faith as would entitle him to payment for beneficial and necessary improvements and repairs made and taxes paid by him thereon?

Third. Was he entitled to have refunded the purchase money paid out by him-- the same having been applied to the payment of valid judgment liens on the land, in favor of the creditors of Enoch Jones, deceased?

These questions will be considered in their order.

I. Did the bankrupt court have jurisdiction to order the sale of the land in controversy?

That it did not has been expressly decided, and has been thus decided in a case arising under this very estate of Enoch Jones, in which it was held that the fact that his estate was being administered by independent executors under the terms of his will, which withdrew it from the control of the probate court, would not confer jurisdiction upon the bankrupt court. Adams v. Terrell, 4 Fed. Rep., 796; Frazier v. McDonald, 8 Nat. Bank. Reg., 237.

We are content to follow the decisions of the United States courts upon this question, one peculiarly within their province and jurisdiction.

As affecting the question of title, there is a well recognized distinction between those cases of judicial sales irregularly made by virtue of a judgment which the court had jurisdiction to render, and those regularly made by virtue of a judgment which the court did not have jurisdiction to render. The former is the defective execution of a valid power, which a court of equity, in proper cases, will aid; the latter is the valid execution of a defective power, which of itself is not sufficient to pass title, though relief in some cases may be granted on other grounds, as by estoppel.

We are of opinion that the court did not err in deciding that Grenet did not acquire the title to the land by virtue of the sale under which he claims.

II. Was Grenet entitled to compensation for beneficial and necessary repairs made and taxes paid by him?

This involves the question of improvements in good faith. Our statute upon this...