Halbert v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 07 February 1894
• Citation: 25 S.W. 1102
• Parties: HALBERT et al. v. CARROLL et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

25 S.W. 1102

HALBERT et al. v. CARROLL et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 7, 1894.

Error from district court, Hill county; J. M. Hall, Judge.

Action by Mollie P. Halbert and others against Hugh Carroll and others. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.

Thos. B. Greenwood, for plaintiffs in error. Tarlton & Morrow and McKinnon & Carlton, for defendants in error.

LIGHTFOOT, C. J.

The plaintiffs in error instituted in the district court of Hill county three distinct actions of trespass to try title for three several tracts of land situated in Hill county, patented to John E. Cravens and John G. Gooch, as assignees of Robert S. Patton. Each petition was in the ordinary form of trespass to try title. In each case the defendants answered separately, pleading the general issue and limitation. In each case plaintiffs in error filed first supplemental petition setting up their coverture. The three causes were consolidated. Plaintiff in error Mrs. Mollie P. Halbert claimed to own one undivided half of each of said tracts of land, and deraigned her title as follows: One-eighth through John E. Cravens, her father, by inheritance from him; one-eighth by will of her mother, Mary B. Cravens; and one-fourth by inheritance from her sister, Earle E. Cravens, who died a minor on the 20th day of April, 1880. Plaintiffs in error Mrs. S. A. Lane and Mrs. I. F. Threadgill claimed to own one-half of said land as purchasers for value without notice, claiming through the will of John G. Gooch, the warranty deed of his executor, Gideon J. Gooch, to Jesse Calhoun, and several conveyances from Jesse Calhoun to themselves. The defendants in error contend that a contract was made by J. T. Ratliff (about October 24, 1867) with George F. Alford, administrator of John E. Cravens, deceased, who acted for said estate, and also on behalf of Gideon J. Gooch, independent executor of John G. Gooch, deceased, whereby said Ratliff was to locate the Robert S. Patton league certificate, pay the expenses of procuring patents, and get one-third of the land as located and patented for his services; that he fully complied with the contract, which was approved by the county court of Anderson county, and a deed executed to him by said Alford, administrator, under the orders of said court; and that the contract was ratified by Gideon J. Gooch, as executor of John G. Gooch, deceased, and by his vendee, Jesse Calhoun, as well as by the heirs of John E. Cravens, deceased, and that the defendants hold under mesne conveyances from said Ratliff. Defendants also claim valuable improvements, made in good faith, and by limitation. The three cases having been consolidated, the trial below resulted in a judgment in favor of defendants, which has been brought up by writ of error.

It is not questioned that the land in controversy was patented under the Robert S. Patton certificate, which was owned jointly by the estates of John E. Cravens, deceased, and John G. Gooch, deceased. That Gideon J. Gooch was independent executor of John G. Gooch, deceased, is not controverted. There was some controversy raised by plaintiffs in error as to the regularity of the appointment of George F. Alford as administrator of the estate of John E. Cravens, deceased; but under the facts disclosed in the record showing his appointment and qualification, and his annual reports to the county court and the full recognition by that court for a number of years up to and including his final settlement and discharge, and the contests with the heirs themselves, and final compromise by them with him, in which they agree to his annual and final reports and discharge, we are constrained to regard the question of his official status settled, and must treat him as the administrator of John E. Cravens, deceased. Guilford v. Love, 49 Tex. 715; Alexander v. Maverick, 18 Tex. 197.

2. The first question presented by plaintiffs in error by their assignment is this: Did the contract made by J. T. Ratliff with George F. Alford confer upon him a right to one-third of the land located by him under the Robert S. Patton certificate? If Ratliff, by such contract, and by subsequent ratification thereof by all the parties interested, obtained a locative interest of one-third of the Robert S. Patton land, and the same was afterwards set apart to him by their acquiescence and consent, and the defendants held under him, their title cannot be disturbed. But it is claimed by plaintiffs in error that this locative contract was not valid and binding upon them, because the administrator had no power to make such a contract, and because he was administrator of John E. Cravens, deceased; and that Mollie P. Halbert obtained a part of the Cravens interest through the will of her mother, Mary B. Cravens, deceased, which could not be affected by it. Let us examine these positions. The half interest of John E. Cravens in this certificate was community property between himself and his wife, Mary B. Cravens. The husband died in 1860, and the wife in 1862. They left two children, Mollie P. and Earle E., who died a minor in 1880. The estate of the husband, John E. Cravens, was administered in Anderson county, and debts against that estate are presumed to be community debts. The community property administered and properly disposed of in such an administration by an administrator of the deceased husband will become vested in the purchaser as against the heirs or legatees of the wife. So, if the locative contract, and deed to Ratliff thereunder, were properly made by Alford under the orders of the court, it vested title in him as against the legatees of Mary B. Cravens, deceased. George F. Alford testified that on October 24, 1867, as administrator of the estate of John E. Cravens, deceased, and also representing Gideon J. Gooch (who was independent executor of John G. Gooch), at his request and by his acquiescence entered into a written contract with J. T. Ratliff, agreeing to give him one-third of the land to be located under the R. S. Patton certificate for services in locating and procuring patents for the same; that this contract was fully ratified by Gideon J. Gooch, and also by Jesse Calhoun, to whom said Gooch sold and deeded all the interest of the Gooch estate in such certificate; and that the contract was lost. This testimony was not disputed, although Gideon J. Gooch testified in the case. The contract as made was duly reported by Alford in his annual report to the county court, which was approved. After the locations were made and patents procured, the administrator reported that fact to the county court, and that the administrator, by the consent and agreement of the locator, J. T. Ratliff, and Jesse Calhoun, who had bought the Gooch interest, had partitioned and set apart to Ratliff his interest by metes and bounds, and asking that the same be approved, and that he be ordered to make deed therefor. The order was duly granted, and George F. Alford, as such administrator, in compliance therewith, executed a deed to J. T. Ratliff for such land March 16, 1878, which was approved by the court. This contract on the part of the administrator for the location of the land certificate, and the subsequent deed of partition with Ratliff, and the partition deed made under the order and direction of the county court, fully vested in Ratliff title to all the land therein conveyed, in so far as the estate of John E. Cravens was concerned. Murrell v. Wright, 78 Tex. 519, 15 S. W. 156; Wren v. Harris, 78 Tex. 349, 14 S. W. 696. The sale and deed by George F. Alford, as administrator of J. T. Ratliff, of all the interest of the estate in the land set out in such deed, was made in compliance with an order of the county court, and his action in the premises was approved by that court. The orders were such as that court...