Hall v. Collins

Decision Date05 May 1941
Docket NumberNo. 5293.,5293.
Citation151 S.W.2d 338
PartiesHALL et al. v. COLLINS et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Wilbarger County; C. Y. Welch, Judge.

Suit by Nannie Mae Collins against Sarah Elizabeth Hall and others to recover an undivided one-fourth interest in land and for other relief, wherein S. B. Halford filed a cross-action. From an unsatisfactory judgment, Sarah Elizabeth Hall, William M. Hall, and J. B. Halford appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Shirley Cook, of Vernon, for appellants.

Hollars & Oswalt, of Vernon, for appellee Nannie Mae Collins.

L. P. Bonner, of Vernon, for appellee S. B. Halford.

FOLLEY, Justice.

This suit is a controversy between the four surviving children of Mrs. Lillie Halford, deceased, involving 640 acres of land in Wilbarger County, Texas, known as the E¼ of Section 44 and the E½ and the SW¼ of Section 45, all in Block 12, H. & T. C. Ry. Co. Survey. The four children consist of two daughters, Mrs. Nannie Mae Collins and Mrs. Sarah Elizabeth Hall, and two sons, S. B. Halford and J. B. Halford, who are the only heirs at law of Mrs. Halford, deceased.

Mrs. Halford's husband died in 1910, at which time it appears that he and Mrs Halford owned no real property. Several years thereafter Mrs. Halford purchased the NW¼ of Section 45 in Block 12, which land she owned at the time of her death on December 6, 1935. This one-fourth section is not involved in this controversy except incidentally as shall hereinafter appear. In a settlement of her deceased father's estate Mrs. Halford acquired the other lands hereinabove described as her separate property.

On January 16, 1933 Mrs. Halford by general warranty deeds conveyed the SW¼ of Section 45 to her daughter, Mrs. Sarah Elizabeth Hall and the E¼ of Section 44 and the E½ of Section 45 to her son, J. B. Halford. The consideration recited in each of the deeds was one dollar and love and affection. At the time these two deeds were executed Mrs. Halford was surety on the indebtedness of her other son, S. B. Halford, to the First State Bank of Vernon, Texas, in the sum of about $6,000. Also at such time the other daughter, Mrs. Nannie Mae Collins, had been absent from Wilbarger County for about two years. There was proof to the effect that her whereabouts were unknown to her Wilbarger County relatives, they thinking her to be dead. Mrs. Collins, however, resided in Dallas County, Texas, from 1931 until 1937, when she learned that her mother had died in 1935, whereupon she returned to Wilbarger County.

Mrs. Halford died intestate and Mrs. Hall was appointed administratrix of her estate by the County Court of Wilbarger County. Such administration is still pending. The only real property listed in the inventory and appraisement of the estate of the deceased is the NW¼ of Section 45 which was owned by Mrs. Halford at the time of her death and against which there is an indebtedness of about $5,000. This indebtedness is the balance due upon the original debt of S. B. Halford to the First State Bank, which indebtedness is now held by Mary Schmoker and is secured by a deed of trust executed by the administratrix upon the 160 acres of land inventoried in the estate of Mrs. Halford.

With the above factual background this suit was filed by Nannie Mae Collins against her sister, Mrs. Hall, and her two brothers, S. B. Halford and J. B. Halford. Mrs. Hall being under coverture, her husband, William M. Hall, was also a defendant in this suit. Mrs. Collins sought recovery from her sister and brothers of a one-fourth undivided interest in the 160 acres of land deeded to Mrs. Hall and the 480 acres of land deeded to J. B. Halford. She alleged that she and the other three children were all the children and heirs at law of Mrs. Halford, deceased; that they were each the joint owners in fee simple of an undivided one-fourth interest in the 640 acres of land conveyed by her mother to Mrs. Hall and J. B. Halford; that Mrs. Halford at the time of her death was seized and possessed of the land in controversy; that on January 16, 1933, at the suggestion and persuasion of Sarah Elizabeth Hall and J. B. Halford, Mrs. Lillie Halford did execute and deliver to Sarah Elizabeth Hall a warranty deed purporting to convey the fee simple title to the SW¼ of Survey 45; that such land was conveyed to Mrs. Hall in trust for the use and benefit of Mrs. Lillie Halford upon the assurance that Mrs. Hall would reconvey such land to Mrs. Halford; that at such time Sarah Elizabeth Hall advised, requested and persuaded her mother not to record the deed of reconveyance in order that the apparent ownership of such land would be shown in Mrs. Hall; that no valid consideration was paid for such land; that at the time the land was conveyed to Mrs. Hall, the latter, joined by her husband, executed and delivered to Mrs. Halford a deed in writing reconveying such land to Mrs. Halford; that under the same circumstances and representations Mrs. Halford at the same time conveyed to J. B. Halford the E¼ of Section 44 and the E½ of Section 45, the latter promising to hold the same in trust for Mrs. Halford and her estate; that J. B. Halford executed a deed reconveying such land to Mrs. Halford with the understanding that such deed of reconveyance should not be recorded; that Mrs. Hall and J. B. Halford were in possession of the deeds reconveying the property to their mother and notice was given for them to produce such deeds or parol testimony would be offered to show their contents; that Mrs. Hall was wrongfully and fraudulently withholding such lands from proper inventory and appraisement of the estate of Lillie Halford, deceased; that in 1928 and subsequent years S. B. Halford became involved in financial difficulties and that Mrs. Lillie Halford advanced large sums of money to him in excess of $6,000; that such advancements were made with the understanding that they should be charged to his share of his mother's estate; that the petitioner was absent from Wilbarger County when the transactions were made between her mother and Mrs. Hall and J. B. Halford; that they did not know her whereabouts and believed her to be deceased; and that at the time such deeds were executed it was agreed and understood by and between the parties that she was to receive her portion of the property if she were alive. Mrs. Collins prayed that the deeds conveying the land to Mrs. Hall and J. B. Halford be cancelled; that all the land be decreed the property of the estate of Lillie Halford, deceased, and partitioned between the four children; that any advancements received by any of the other three children be charged against his interest in the estate; and that Mrs. Hall and J. B. Halford be required to render an accounting.

Sarah Elizabeth Hall and her husband and J. B. Halford answered by general demurrer and general denial and a special plea of limitation of four years as against Mrs. Collins' right to cancel the deeds.

S. B. Halford filed an answer and cross-action against the other defendants in which he made substantially the same allegations as did Mrs. Collins. In addition to this, he further alleged that he became indebted to the First State Bank of Vernon for about $6,000; that such indebtedness was secured by a mortgage on certain real estate of his own; that the bank desired further security and insisted that his mother sign his note and give the bank a deed of trust on the NW¼ of Section 45, which she did; that he had reduced such indebtedness to about $4,750; that a new loan in the sum of $5,000 was obtained from Mary Schmoker to take up the indebtedness held by the bank and extend the time of payment; that before the latter loan was made Sarah Elizabeth Hall required him to convey to her his one-fourth interest in the 160 acre tract mortgaged to secure such loan; that there was no consideration for such conveyance; that Mrs. Hall agreed to reconvey such one-fourth interest to him upon the payment of such indebtedness; that the $5,000 debt was a just charge against his interest in his mother's estate; that after his mother signed his note and gave the lien on her land as security his sister, Mrs. Hall, and his brother, J. B. Halford, continuously and persistently counseled his mother to convey all of her property over to them in trust so they could protect her against further encumbering the same at the instance of S. B. Halford; and that he was not otherwise indebted to the estate except as confessed by him. He also prayed that the deeds conveying the land to Mrs. Hall and J. B. Halford be cancelled; that such lands be declared the property of the estate of Lillie Halford and inventoried as such; that all of the property of such estate be divided and partitioned between the four children; that each heir be charged with all obligations legally chargeable to him or her; and that his deed to Mrs. Hall for his one-fourth interest in the NW¼ of Section 45 be cancelled and that a full accounting be had between all of the parties.

Upon special issues submitted the jury found, in effect, that the land in controversy was deeded to Mrs. Hall and J. B. Halford in trust for the benefit of all the children in equal shares; that such deeds were executed upon the agreement that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Garza v. De Leon
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1946
    ...latest discussion of the rule and for collation of authorities, see opinion by Mr. Justice Folley of our Supreme Court in Hall v. Collins, Tex.Civ. App., 151 S.W.2d 338, writ refused. Moreover, since Carlota sought to recover the property in question by imposing a trust thereon and not by v......
  • Highsmith v. Tyler State Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1946
    ...fact that his interest in the decedent's estate was identical with some of the plaintiffs (appellants). It is said in Hall v. Collins, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 338, 341, writ refused, as the settled law of this state: "When it appears `that the interest of the parties nominally arrayed on o......
  • Potier v. Cook, 5864.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1941
    ...and is of such a material nature as to require a reversal of the judgment. Spencer v. Schell, 107 Tex. 44, 173 S.W. 867; Hall v. Collins, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 338, writ refused; Peil v. Warren, Tex.Civ. App., 187 S.W. 1052, writ refused; Hays v. Dumraese, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W.2d 225, w......
  • Magids v. American Title Ins. Co., Miami, Fla., 15674
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1970
    ...in violation of Article 3719, R.C.S., the so-called 'dead man's statute'. This article was considered in Hall v. Collins, 151 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1941, error ref.), where the court said: '* * * In applying the statutory rule the courts will consider the nature of the suit and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT