Glen Rose Collegiate Inst. v. Glen Rose I. S. Dist. No. 1
Citation | 125 S.W. 379 |
Parties | GLEN ROSE COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE v. GLEN ROSE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 et al.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Decision Date | 08 January 1910 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Somervell County; W. J. Oxford, Judge.
Action by the Glen Rose Independent School District No. 1 against the Glen Rose Collegiate Institute and others. From a judgment for plaintiff against defendants T. O. Martin and others for the recovery of certain property and for defendants Martin and others, defendant the Glen Rose Collegiate Institute appeals. Reversed and rendered.
T. L. Stanfield and J. B. Haynes, for appellant. Lev. Hays, Jno. J. Hiner, and Lee Riddle, for appellees.
The following statement by appellant, which appellee concedes to be substantially correct, will sufficiently indicate the nature and result of this suit:
Among other things that we think it unnecessary to notice appellant answered by a general denial. The heirs of H. F. Martin also answered for themselves, affirming substantially the allegations of the plaintiff in the suit, and admitted the right of the plaintiff to recover the two acres, but pleaded against appellant for the remainder. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered against appellant for all the land described in the deed, and in favor of the Glen Rose Independent School District against the Martin heirs for two acres including the building, and for the Martins the remainder.
The first and second assignments go to the alleged action of the court in overruling certain demurrers, but the record fails to show that the demurrers were called to the attention of the court, or that the court made any ruling thereon. These assignments must therefore be disregarded.
Appellant's third and fourth assignments, however, we think are well taken. They are as follows: Third: "The court erred in finding against defendant because there were contained in the deed from H. F. Martin to the trustees of Glen Rose Collegiate Institute only two conditions of defeasance, to wit: First, and it is expressly agreed by the trustees herein mentioned and the grantor herein that in the event that said Trinity Presbytery shall fail to incorporate said Glen Rose Collegiate Institute under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Texas, and, second, to furnish a principal in said college free of charge to the local patrons of said college for a period...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosek v. Kotzur
...v. Huntington, 104 Tex. 350, 136 S. W. 1053, 138 S. W. 381; Robinson v. Faville (Tex. Civ. App.) 213 S. W. 318; Glen Rose v. Glen Rose, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 125 S. W. 379; Carney v. Carney, 138 Tenn. 647, 200 S. W. 517; Shafer v. Shafer (Mo.) 190 S. W. 325; Anderson v. Gaines, 156 Mo. 664......
-
Henshaw v. Texas Natural Resources Foundation
...forfeiture, but gave rise to an action for damages for a breach of those obligations. Glen Rose Collegiate Institute v. Glen Rose Independent School Dist. No. 1 et al., 58 Tex.Civ.App. 435, 125 S.W. 379, writ refused; Chicago, T. & M. R. Co. et al. v. Titterington et ux., supra; W. T. Waggo......
-
J. M. Carey And Brother v. City of Casper
... ... Law of Property, Volume 1, Sec. 24, p. 59 ... The ... intent ... other reasonable construction. Glen Rose Collegiate ... Institute vs. Glen Rose ... v. Imperial Irr ... Dist., (9 Cir.) 85 F.2d 886. "The challenge to the ... ...
-
Community of Priests v. Byrne
...against such, where the language, as here, clearly manifests only an agreement to reconvey. Glen Rose Collegiate Inst. v. Glen Rose I. S. Dist., 58 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 125 S. W. 379 (writ denied); Kent v. Stevenson, 127 Miss. 529, 90 South. 241; Kohnke v. Kohnke (Mo. Sup.) 250 S. W. 53. It ......