Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gill

• Decision Date: 18 December 1893
• Citation: 24 S.W. 502
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. GILL et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 502

24 S.W. 502

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. GILL et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 18, 1893.

Error from court of civil appeals, second supreme judicial district.

Action in the form of trespass to try title by the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company against L. B. Gill and others. A judgment for defendants was on appeal affirmed by the court of civil appeals, (23 S. W. 142,) and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Leake, Henry & Reeves, for plaintiff in error. L. B. Gill, for defendants in error.

BROWN, J.

W. B. Tucker and wife owned a tract of land in Ft. Worth, which was laid out into blocks and lots as "Tucker's Addition" to that city. On the 25th day of June, 1881, Tucker and wife, for the consideration of $500, which was paid, made a deed to the plaintiff in error conveying certain land in the city of Ft. Worth, described as "blocks 50 & 55 in Tucker's addition to the city of Ft. Worth." The deed was filed for record, and recorded in the county clerk's office in Tarrant county on the 25th day of February, 1882. The railroad company constructed its railroad over a part of block 55 in the summer or fall of 1881. After the making of the deed to the railroad company, Tucker and wife made a deed to Edward Isham for one of the lots in controversy, the deed bearing date the 6th day of October 1881, acknowledged on the 5th day of December, 1881, and recorded on the 6th day of that month. Isham paid the purchase money when the deed was delivered, and had no actual notice of the deed from Tucker and wife to the railroad company. After the record of the deed from Tucker and wife to plaintiff in error, Tucker sold other lots to different persons under whom the defendants claim, each of whom paid the purchase money. Each of the purchasers of these lots employed counsel to examine the records, by whom the title was pronounced to be good. Tucker used a map in making the sale of these lots, which showed that they were not a part of block 55; and the purchasers had no notice that there was any other map of the addition, nor did they know that the railroad company claimed the land in controversy as a part of the block purchased by it from Tucker and wife. The map used by Tucker in making the sales to defendants and those under whom they claim was made by Findley at Tucker's instance, but the defendants are not shown to have known that it was made after the sale to plaintiff in error. Plaintiff in error claims that when it purchased block 55 of Tucker and wife, a map called the "Cetti Map" was used, and that they purchased according to it, which showed that block 55 extended on the west to Jones street, and embraced all the lots in controversy. The Cetti map was not recorded. The railroad of plaintiff in error was built on a part of the block 55, but the roadbed was 132 feet from the nearest point of the lots. It is not shown that plaintiff in error had on the block any improvements except the roadbed, with the grade and ditches caused in making it. Judgment was given in the district court for all of the defendants, which was...