Garrett v. Christopher
| Decision Date | 25 June 1889 |
| Citation | 12 S.W. 67 |
| Parties | GARRETT <I>v.</I> CHRISTOPHER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Charles I. Evans, for plaintiff in error. Spoonts & Leggett, for defendant in error.
D. F. Garrett brought this suit against J. H. Christopher in trespass to try title to 160 acres of land patented to I. G. Mabry, assignee of Tilghman Berry. Both parties deraign title from the patentee. The plaintiff claims title through a lost deed alleged to have been executed by the patentee to Wm. A. Hall on February 1, 1856, and mesne conveyances to himself. The defendant claims title through conveyance from the widow and children of Mabry, the patentee, to George W. Jalonick and C. Von Carlowitz, executed in 1881, and mesne conveyances to himself. The trial was without a jury, and judgment rendered for defendant, from which this writ of error is prosecuted.
The court filed conclusions to the effect that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of the lost deed under which he claims, and that the defendant was a bona fide purchaser of the land for a valuable consideration paid by him, without notice, actual or constructive, of plaintiff's claim. Under the view we entertain as to the law which must govern in the disposition of the case, it will be sufficient to consider the fourth assignment only, which relates to the court's conclusion that the defendant was an innocent purchaser for value, for, if the court was correct in that conclusion, it is immaterial whether plaintiff proved the execution of the lost deed or not. Plaintiff's title papers were not filed for record until the 8th day of December, 1884. The defendant purchased the land and received a conveyance therefor on the 30th day of May, 1884. It is certain that he did not have contructive notice of plaintiff's prior unrecorded title at the time he purchased, and it is not claimed that he had actual notice. It was proven conclusively that he paid the consideration of $1,200 in cash at the time he purchased the land; but it is contended by plaintiff in error that the deed from the widow and children of the patentee to C. Von Carlowitz, through which defendant claims, is a quitclaim, and will not support the defense of innocent purchaser. If the deed is a quitclaim, in the strict sense of that species of conveyances, then the assignment is well taken. Whether the conveyance be a quitclaim or not is dependent upon the intent of the parties to it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston Oil Co. v. Niles
...47 Tex. 454, 26 Am. Rep. 304; Richardson v. Levi, above; Lumber Company v. Hancock, 70 Tex. 312, 7 S. W. 724; Garrett v. Christopher, 74 Tex. 453, 12 S. W. 67, 15 Am. St. Rep. 850; Threadgill v. Bickerstaff, above; White v. Frank, 91 Tex. 66, 40 S. W. 962; Cook v. Smith, above; Lumber Co. v......
-
Balch v. Arnold
... ... And this result ... may be produced even in the absence of any warranty whatever ... Hannon v. Christopher 34 N.J. Eq. 459; ... Shoenberger v. Lyon, 7 Watts & Serg. 184; ... Lindsay v. Freeman, 83 Tex. 259, 18 S.W. 727. As ... said in Van ... of the parties to convey the land itself, and not simply to ... quit claim. In Garrett v. Christopher, 74 Tex. 453, ... 12 S.W. 67, the court says: "The language of the deed ... now under consideration is: 'Do by these presents sell, ... ...
-
Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Cooley
...in fee, the grantees acquired under the quitclaim deed a fee simple title. Richardson v. Levi, 67 Tex. 359, 3 S.W. 444; Garrett v. Christopher, 74 Tex. 453, 12 S.W. 67; Harrison Oil Co. v. Sherman, 66 S.W.2d 701, Tex.Civ.App.1933, writ In construing an instrument of conveyance, the first an......
-
Green v. West Texas Coal Mining & Developing Co.
...W. 55; Abernathy v. Stone, 81 Tex. 430, 16 S. W. 1102; Moore v. Swift, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 51, 67 S. W. 1065; Garrett v. Christopher, 74 Tex. 453, 12 S. W. 67, 15 Am. St. Rep. 850; Thredgill v. Bickerstaff, 87 Tex. 522, 29 S. W. 4. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the words "all of ou......