Howard v. Fulton
Decision Date | 13 January 1891 |
Citation | 14 S.W. 1061 |
Parties | HOWARD v. FULTON. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Walton, Hill & Walton, and West & McGown, for appellant. Robertson & Williams, for appellee.
This was an action of trespass to try title brought by appellant to recover of appellee 68 sections of land in Oldham and Deaf Smith counties. The appellant, being the owner of the lands on the 27th day of November, 1886, executed to one Thompson, as trustee, a mortgage, with a power of sale, for the purpose of securing a promissory note payable to one Francis, on the 24th day of November, 1887. The note not having been paid at maturity, the trustee, after advertising the sale, sold and conveyed it to one Mary Wilke, who conveyed it to one J. W. Rickey, who, in turn, conveyed it to the appellee. The contention of the plaintiff in the court below was that the conveyance by the trustee was invalid by reason of his failure to give notice in the manner provided by the deed of trust, and such is his contention here. The stipulation in the instrument conferring the power to sell is as follows: etc.
The agreed statement upon which the case was submitted in this court shows that the trustee gave notice of the time, terms, and place of sale, and of the property to be sold as follows: By posting two printed copies of such notice on the boards in the corridor of the court-house in the city of Austin, county of Travis, and state of Texas, said printed notice being about 10 inches in length, and 2 inches in breadth, the sale being made at the west front door of said court-house, where all public sales in the county of Travis are usually made, and the boards on which the notices were posted were in the corridor of the building, about 40 feet from the front door, and in open view from the door and just at the side of the stairway leading to the court-rooms in the second story. The boards on which those notices were placed were provided by the county of Travis for the posting of notices of sheriffs' sales, tax-sales, all notices in probate matters, and all public...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kleeb v. Kleeb
...is sufficient, to all reasonable intents and purposes." The Texas Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Howard v. Fulton, 79 Tex. 231, 236, 14 S.W. 1061, 1062 (1891), which stated: "Reasons readily suggest themselves why the doors of a costly public building should be neither defaced......
-
Heiner v. Homeland Realty Co.
...complied with by the substitute trustee in this case, and the sale made by him is not subject to attack on that ground. Howard v. Fulton, 79 Tex. 231, 236, 14 S.W. 1061. Appellants present a group of propositions in which they complain of the action of the court in giving a peremptory charg......
-
Clark v. Sayle
...corridor of the courthouse, about forty feet from the front door, at the side of the stairway leading to the courtroom. Howard v. Fulton, 79 Tex. 231, 14 S.W. 1061, 1062. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the posting of the notice in the case at bar, as described ante, complied with th......
-
Gary Carlton Camp v. State
...Appeals have held that "at" is not as definite as other prepositions and "at the house may be in or near the house." Howard v. Fulton, 79 Tex. 231, 14 S.W. 1061 (1891). The State also cites Caldwell v. State, 136 Tex.Crim. 524, 126 S.W.2d 654, 655 (1939) (defining "at the courthouse door"),......