Holland v. Blanchard

• Citation: 262 S.W. 97
• Decision Date: 29 March 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 9091.)
• Parties: HOLLAND et al. v. BLANCHARD et al.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

Page 97

262 S.W. 97

HOLLAND et al. v. BLANCHARD et al.

(No. 9091.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

March 29, 1924.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Louis Wilson, Judge.

Action by Annie E. Blanchard and others against E. N. Holland and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. T. Burgess, of Dallas, for appellant.

Geo. A. Titterington, of Dallas, for appellees.

LOONEY, J.

This is an action of trespass to try title by appellees against E. N. Holland et al. to recover certain lots situated in Oak Lawn addition to the city of Dallas. The trial was before a jury and resulted in an instructed verdict and judgment accordingly in favor of appellees. E. N. Holland alone appeals. Holland pleaded in the court below not guilty, improvements in good faith, and estoppel. The right of appellant to recover the value of improvements in good faith was not contested by appellees and in this respect the judgment of the court below fully protects him.

The only material question presented on this appeal arises on the plea of estoppel urged by appellant, which is substantially as follows:

That the lot in question, being lot No. 10 in block No. 5, Oak Lawn addition, was by a deed dated December 29, 1898, recorded in Dallas county deed records on March 3, 1899, conveyed to Sarah J. Prouty, of the state of New York, by the Building & Loan Association of Dakota; was by a deed dated August 25, 1906. conveyed by Sarah J. Bradley (formerly Sarah J. Prouty) joined by her husband, F. M. Bradley, to J. A. Brooks, consideration $450, cash, recorded in Dallas county deed records on August 30, 1906; was on April 11, 1907, conveyed by J. A. Brooks to Ras Hackett, consideration $800, cash, deed recorded in Dallas county deed records on April 16, 1907; was on January 1, 1908, conveyed by Ras Hackett and wife to L. V. Duncan. consideration $1,250, deed recorded in Dallas county deed records on January 2, 1908; was on August 18, 1915, conveyed by L. V. Duncan to Paul G. Meyer, consideration $1,000, deed recorded in Dallas county deed records September 10, 1915, and, on November 13, 1915, Paul G. Meyer conveyed the land to R. E. Wiley, consideration $1,000, deed recorded in Dallas county deed records on November 22, 1915; was on November 29, 1915, by R. E. Wiley conveyed to E. W Ware, consideration $1,060. deed recorded in Dallas county deed records on November 29, 1915; and was on February 7, 1917, conveyed by E. W. Ware to Jasper Collins, consideration $1,100, deed recorded in Dallas county deed records April 24, 1917; and was on April 25, 1917, conveyed by Jasper Collins and wife to Stevie Selby, consideration $1,350, deed recorded in Dallas county deed records on April 26, 1917, and on June 10, 1918, Stevie (Selby) Watson and her husband, V. S. Watson. conveyed the lot to the appellant E. N Holland, consideration $4,250, deed recorded in Dallas county deed records on June 10, 1918.

That the consideration expressed in each of the deeds was in truth and in fact paid and that at the time of the purchase of the lot by Stevie Selby the same was vacant and abutted upon an unpaved street, and believing that by the deeds hereinbefore mentioned she was vested with the full fee-simple title to the lot, and that the Sarah J. Prouty to whom said lot was conveyed was the Sarah J. Prouty Bradley, who, joined by her husband, F. M. Bradley, conveyed the lot to J. A. Brooks, she bought the lot from Jasper Collins for $1,350 and erected a house and other improvements at a cost of $4,300, and that appellant Holland, relying upon the record title to said lot, and believing that the Sarah J. Prouty who conveyed to Brooks was the Sarah J. Prouty to whom the same was conveyed, purchased the lot from Mrs. Watson for $4,250.

Appellant further alleged that if the Sarah J. Prouty, the ancestress of plaintiffs, was the grantee in the deed from the Building & Loan Association of Dakota, and, if she ever owned said lot, that she died on or about the 27th day of November, 1911, more than five years after the execution and delivery of the deed of Sarah J. Prouty Bradley to J. A. Brooks, and that she knew that one Sarah J. Prouty had conveyed the lot and that the deed was recorded in Dallas county, and that parties were claiming the lot by reason of such conveyance, believing that the Sarah J. Prouty to whom the lot had been conveyed by the Building & Loan Association and the Sarah J. Prouty who conveyed to J. A. Brooks were one and the same person, and that others would deal with said lot upon the faith of the records of Dallas county, Tex., and that the said Sarah J. Prouty, the ancestress of appellees, paid no taxes on the lot, exercised no acts of ownership over it, and took no steps to vacate or set aside the deed executed by Sarah J. Prouty Bradley or to advise the parties relying upon the faith of said deed that the said Sarah J. Prouty who owned the lot did not convey the same, but induced the appellant and his grantors to purchase said lot and make valuable improvements thereon; that appellant and his grantors, relying upon the fact that the Sarah J. Prouty who conveyed the lot was the Sarah J. Prouty to whom the same had been conveyed, purchased the same and paid enhanced value for the lot, as shown by the considerations mentioned in the respective deeds, wherefore appellant pleads that appellees are estopped from now asserting title to the lot.

The material facts are substantially as follows:

The common source of title is the Building & Loan Association of Dakota. The deeds of conveyance hereinbefore set out, in connection with the plea of estoppel, bear the dates and were executed for the considerations, and were duly filed and recorded in the deed records of Dallas county as hereinbefore recited. It was agreed that the grantees in the chain of title that originated in the deed executed by Mrs. Sarah J. (Prouty) Bradley and her husband to J. A. Brooks, down to and including the appellant Holland, paid valuable considerations for the lot in question, and that each purchased in good faith. The appellees herein are the heirs and legatees of Mrs. Sarah Jane Prouty, of Watertown, N. Y., and succeeded to whatever right, title, or interest their ancestress had or owned in the lot at the time of her death. Mrs. Prouty of Watertown, N. Y., died November 27, 1911, and Geo. H. Walker was executor of her will, and served in that capacity until discharged some time in the year 1916.

Neither Mrs. Prouty nor Walker, her executor, nor appellees, her heirs and legatees, paid any taxes on the lot in question, nor did Walker, as executor, schedule the lot as a part of the property belonging to her estate. The appellant and those under whom he claims have paid all taxes due and assessed against the lot in question.

The Sarah J. Bradley, formerly Sarah J Prouty, who, joined by her husband, F. M. Bradley, on August 25, 1906, conveyed the lot of land in controversy to J. A. Brooks, never resided at any time at Watertown, state of New York. She was married three times: First, to a man by the name of Cox, in the state of Georgia; second, to a man by the name of Prouty, in Greenville, Tex., the date not shown; and, third, to F. M. Bradley, in the city of New Orleans, La. In 1871 or 1872, Mrs. Cox, as she bore that name at that time, resided in the city of Dallas. Subsequently she married Prouty, but their married life did not extend over a very long period. She married Bradley about 1903 and resided at Mobile, Ala., until Bradley died in 1911, since which time she has resided part of the time in the city of Dallas and part of the time in the state of Alabama.

The purchasers of the lot of land in question — J. A. Brooks, L. V. Duncan, Paul G. Meyer, R. V. Wiley, E. W. Ware, Jasper Collins, Mrs. Stevie (Selby) Watson, and appellant E. N. Holland — each testified in substance that the lot of land was purchased in good faith, each believing that a good title was being conveyed, did not know and had never heard of a Sarah J. Prouty of New York owning or claiming the property or any interest therein, had not heard and did not know of her heirs making claim to the lot, and possessed no information that Sarah J. Prouty Bradley, who conveyed the property to J. A. Brooks, was not the Sarah J. Prouty in whom the record title stood.

In addition to the facts just recited, the following evidence is also given relating to the identity of the Sarah J. Prouty to whom the Building & Loan Association of Dakota conveyed the land as hereinbefore stated.

The said deed from the Building & Loan Association conveying the lot in question contains the following, among other, language:

"This indenture made the twenty-ninth day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, by and between the Building & Loan Association of Dakota (a corporation), of the county of Brown in the state of South Dakota, party of the first part, and Sarah J. Prouty, of the county of ____, in the state of New York, party of the second part, witnesseth," etc.

C. F. Eastern, who was formerly secretary of the Building & Loan Association of Dakota, testified that he knew the facts that resulted in making the deed to Mrs. Prouty; that she was a stockholder and creditor of the association, and that her claim was settled in full; that the deed was delivered to Mrs. Prouty by mailing it to her at her then known address, thinks she resided at Watertown, N. Y.

C. W. Starling, an attorney of Dallas, testified that during the years 1897 and 1898 he was attorney at Dallas for Building & Loan Association of Dakota, and was its agent during these years; that he received the deed in question, either from the Building & Loan Association of Dakota or from the grantee, and was instructed to have it recorded and mailed to Mrs. Sarah Jane Prouty at some place in New York, think it was Watertown; that he had the deed...