Hanks v. Hamman

• Citation: 288 S.W. 143
• Decision Date: 24 November 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 702-4628.)
• Parties: HANKS v. HAMMAN et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

288 S.W. 143

HANKS v. HAMMAN et al.

(No. 702-4628.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

November 24, 1926.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Ninth Supreme Judicial District.

Action of trespass to try title by Wyatt Hanks, through his next friend, H. E. Marshall, against George Hamman and others. Judgment for defendants was affirmed by Court of Civil Appeals (282 S. W. 935), and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and rendered.

H. E. Marshall and Stevens & Stevens, all of Houston, and Wm. McMurrey, of Cold Springs, for plaintiff in error.

E. B. Pickett, Jr., and P. C. Matthews, both of Liberty, and Gill, Jones & Tyler, of Houston, for defendants in error.

POWELL, P. J.

This case is fully stated by the Court of Civil Appeals. See 282 S. W. 935. It is unnecessary to do more here than set out the facts bearing upon the one controlling issue in the case. We agree that this issue is correctly stated by the Court of Civil Appeals as follows:

"If the description of the land in the probate proceedings and guardian's sale was sufficient, then title to the land is in appellees, but otherwise appellant would be entitled to recovery. This is the controlling question in the case."

The Court of Civil Appeals decided that the description in the probate proceedings, aided by extrinsic and parol testimony, was sufficient. So holding, it affirmed the judgment of the district court.

On December 15, 1916, one C. H. Cain was appointed guardian of a minor, Wyatt Hanks. On March 5, 1917, Cain, as guardian, made application to the probate court to invest $100 of his ward's money "in land, same being an undivided interest in the M. G. White league, situated in Liberty county, Tex., near what is now known and called the oil well of the Imperial Oil Company, about 3 miles south of the town of Liberty." The Court of Civil Appeals states that the name "Imperial Oil Company" was a mistake and should have been "Empire Oil & Fuel Company," and that said company was the only company then operating on the White land. The court authorized such an investment, and deed was taken on same date from D. J. Harrison to Wyatt Hanks. The description in the deed actually describes the very land now involved in this suit, and read as follows:

"All the oil, gas and other minerals in and under the hereinafter described land * * * lying and being situate in the county of Liberty and state of Texas, and being part of the M. G. White league, abstract No. 117, and being a part of lot no 3, set aside to Sallie Chambers et al, in cause No. 3557, styled Westly Monroe v. Jessee Williams, by decree of record in Book E, p. 154 et seq., of the minutes of the district court of Liberty county, Tex., and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: Commence at the N. E. corner of said lot No. 3 so set aside to Sallie Chambers. Thence run southerly along the E. line of said lot 28.93 vrs. to a point for the N. E. and beginning corner of the land herein described. Thence N. 88 W. 390.6 vrs. to a point for the N. W. corner of the land herein described. Thence S. 2 W. 29 vrs. to a point for the N. W. corner of the land herein described. Thence S. 88 E. 388.6 vrs. to a point in the E. line of said lot No. 3 for the S. E. corner of the land herein described. Thence northerly along the E. line of said lot No. 3, 39.03 vrs. to the place of beginning, to contain 2 acres of land."

So, Hanks owned the mineral rights under a very definite two acres of land in the M. G. White league in Liberty county.

On April 9, 1917, the guardian made application to the court to sell real estate belonging to the minor. It was described as follows:

"An undivided interest in a certain part of the M. G. White league of land, situated in Liberty county, Tex., same being about two acres, and being on the east side of the Trinity river and about three miles south of the town of Liberty, Tex."

On April 15, 1917, the court granted the application for the sale of the very property described in the application just mentioned. On April 18, 1917, the guardian reported he had sold this very land for $200, describing it just as it was described in the application for the sale. On April 24, 1917, the court confirmed the sale of that very land, and on that same day, Cain, as guardian, executed a deed to the purchaser, Waite, designating the property as follows:

"An undivided interest in a certain part of the M. G. White league of land, situated in Liberty county, Tex., same being about two acres, and being on the east side of the Trinity river and about three miles east of the town of Liberty, Texas."

It will be seen that the same description was used throughout the proceedings relating to the sale by the minor, except that the final deed to the purchaser locates the land three miles east of the town of Liberty instead of three miles south therefrom. In the view we take of the case, that particular discrepancy is immaterial.

On February 8, 1925, two of defendants in error, for the express purpose of "clarifying the description of the land" contained in the guadian's deed to Waite, aforesaid, took a deed from Hanks, conveying the property, but describing the same as it was described in the original deed from Harrison to Hanks. That description is correct.

But the record shows that Hanks was adjudged insane in a court of competent jurisdiction on October 22, 1921. His continued insanity was pleaded by his next friend in the instant suit. Upon this point, the Court of Civil Appeals speaks as follows:

"Appellees also pleaded title in themselves by and through a deed executed by appellant February 8, 1925, in ratification of the prior conveyance by his guardian, C. H. Cain. However, they offered no testimony to show that at the time of executing said deed he had recovered his mentality, and so this defense passes out of the case."

As already stated, the one question in this...