Henderson v. Hall
Decision Date | 27 May 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 11538.,11538. |
Citation | 174 S.W.2d 985 |
Parties | HENDERSON v. HALL et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Trinity County; E. T. Murphy, Judge.
Trespass to try title by J. F. Hall and others against George H. Henderson to recover title to and possession of four tracts of land. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.
Fountain, Cox & Sandlin, S. E. Wilcox, Jr., and Joyce Cox, all of Houston, and Wiley B. Thomas, of Groveton, for appellant.
Crow & Chessher and C. C. Chessher, all of Groveton, for appellees.
This is an action in trespass to try title brought by appellees, J. F. Hall et al., to recover from appellant, George H. Henderson, the title to and possession of four tracts of land out of the J. Ceballos League in Trinity County, Texas, aggregating 208.7 acres.
In a trial before the court judgment was rendered that appellees recover of and from appellant the title to and possession of the land in controversy. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the trial court.
The record shows that: By deed dated March 20, 1928, W. H. Morrison conveyed to Lang Smith three of the tracts of land in controversy, aggregating 162.5 acres. A vendor's lien was retained in said deed to secure a purchase money note for the sum of $700 executed by Lang Smith and payable to W. H. Collins. By deed dated March 30, 1928, Lang Smith conveyed said three tracts of land to M. R. Driskell. A vendor's lien was reserved in this deed to secure the payment of the $700 note executed by Lang Smith and payable to W. H. Collins, and an additional note for the sum of $400 executed by M. R. Driskell and also made payable to W. H. Collins. On the same date M. R. Driskell and his wife, Minnie Driskell, executed a deed of trust on a 46.2 acre tract of land out of the said Ceballos Survey to additionally secure W. H. Collins in the payment of said two notes. By instrument dated March 9, 1930, W. H. Collins transferred and assigned this deed of trust lien on said 46.2 acres of land to appellee, J. F. Hall. It was recited in said instrument that said notes of $700 and $400 had been transferred and assigned, without recourse, to B. S. Brent, and by B. S. Brent, without recourse, to J. F. Hall. There is no assignment of the superior title to said three tracts of land, or the vendor's lien by which they were secured, to J. F. Hall.
By deed dated April 25, 1930, M. R. Driskell and his wife conveyed to appellant, George H. Henderson, a 15/16 mineral interest in the land in controversy. A correction deed was afterwards executed by the Driskells correcting the description of the land conveyed and conveying to appellant a 7/8 interest in the minerals in and under the land in controversy.
On January 2, 1932, for a recited consideration of the cancellation of said two notes for the $700 and $400 above referred to, on which the sum of $1,115.84 was found by the trial court to be due, the Driskells conveyed the land in controversy to appellee, J. F. Hall. J. F. Hall later conveyed the three tracts aggregating 162.5 acres to appellees, Charles I. Vermillion and wife.
Thereafter, on May 18, 1942, appellee filed this action in trespass to try title to recover of and from appellant, George H. Henderson, the title to and possession of the land in controversy.
Appellant answered by general denial and a plea of not guilty, claiming a 7/8 interest in the minerals in and under said land. He specially pled the four years statute of limitation. In the alternative he alleged that he had a vested interest in the land and that appellees' interest constituted only a lien thereon. He sought in the alternative a foreclosure and sale of said land subject to his claimed interest therein, and an order that his mineral interest therein be sold only in the event said foreclosure sale did not bring a sufficient price to satisfy appellee, J. H. Hall's, indebtedness.
The controlling question presented in the appeal is whether the holder of vendor's lien notes, who is neither the original vendor in the deed in which the lien was retained, nor the owner of the superior title to the land, who had taken a conveyance to said land from the original grantee for a recited consideration of the cancellation of the indebtedness for which the lien was given, may thereafter, in a trespass to try title action, recover from a purchaser of a mineral interest in said land from the original vendee.
It has been uniformly held by the courts of this state that the mere assignment of a purchase money note does not carry with it the vendor's superior title to the land by which it is secured, and that accordingly the assignee thereof cannot compel the vendor to transfer the legal title to him or to assert it for his benefit (43 Tex.Jur., pp. 285, 286), and that an assignee as such has no rights other than the right to collect the debt and enforce the lien. He does not occupy the position of the original vendor. Thus he has no title to the property, unless he acquires it by becoming a purchaser at a sale on foreclosure of the lien. Nor has he any right to the possession of the property prior to such time as he may purchase it on foreclosure sale. It follows that the assignee has no right to rescind the contract of sale, to take possession of the property, or to recover it, on default of the purchaser in the purchase money. 43 Tex.Jur., pp. 288, 289.
In Vol. 43, Texas Jurisprudence, page 393, it is held that:
In the early case of Russell & Seisfeld v. Kirkbride et al., 62 Tex. 455, the Supreme Court, speaking through Judge Stayton, said:
Hamblen et al. v. Folts & Walsh, 70 Tex. 132, 7 S.W. 834, 835:
In Stephens et al. v. Matthews' Heirs, 69 Tex. 341, at page 344, 6 S.W. 567, at page 569, Judge Stayton said:
In Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Beckley et al., 93 Tex. 267, 54 S.W. 1027, 1029, opinion by Justice Brown, action was on various theories by the holder of the vendor's lien notes. The action was held to be barred.
After quoting from Stephens v. Matthews, at pages 273, 274 of 93 Tex., at page 1031 of 54 S.W., the Court says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Copeland v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
...been guided by the following authorities: Cleveland State Bank v. Gardner (Tex.Com.App., 121 Tex. 580), 50 S.W.2d 786; Henderson v. Hall (Tex.Civ.App.), 174 S.W.2d 985 (W/e ref., want of '7. T. D. Rowell did not reacquire the 'superior title' to the land in controversy prior to the June 23,......
-
Jordan v. Exxon Corp.
...any claim to it. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 801; see also Clarady v. Bonin, 597 S.W.2d at 447; Sanders v. Taylor, 500 S.W.2d at 686; Henderson v. Hall, 174 S.W.2d 985, 990 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1943, writ ref'd w.o.m.). A pleading or written certificate so stating is sufficient. Indeed, TEX.R.CIV.P......
-
Salazar v. Garcia, 12099
...by the defendants amount to a disclaimer by them of any title to the lots. Rule 801, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Henderson v. Hall, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 985. We will next consider appellants' points numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. By these points the appellants claim......
-
Chapter 7-2 Trespass to Try Title
...S.W.2d 243, 251 (Tex. 1964).[37] Tex. R. Civ. P. 804.[38] Tex. R. Civ. P. 804.[39] Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 22.003.[40] Henderson v. Hall, 174 S.W.2d 985, 990 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1943, writ ref'd w.o.m.).[41] Lile v. Smith, 291 S.W.3d 75, 79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.).[42] See ......