Hughes v. Delaney

• Decision Date: 01 January 1876
• Citation: 44 Tex. 529
• Parties: SUSAN HUGHES, ADM'R OF JOSEPH STRINGFELLOW, v. FANNIE DELANEY.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

44 Tex. 529

SUSAN HUGHES, ADM'R OF JOSEPH STRINGFELLOW,

v.FANNIE DELANEY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1876.

APPEAL from Brazoria. Tried below before the Hon. A. P. McCormick.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Thomas G. Masterson, for appellant, cited Neill v. Keese, 5 Tex., 30;Hodges v. Johnson, 15 Tex., 573;Hall v. Layton, 16 Tex., 275;Law v. Merrills, 6 Wend., 268;Malin v. Malin, 1 Wend., 652.

A. S. Lathrop & M. W. Lathrop, for appellee.

Eugene Wilson, also for appellee.

REEVES, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

The appellee, who was plaintiff in the District Court, claims an undivided one-half interest in a tract of one hundred acres of land, which she alleges in her petition was purchased by her husband in his lifetime of M. S. Munson and George P. Munson; that her husband, upon making the purchase, instructed the Munsons to make a deed for one-half of the tract to her and the other half to Joseph Stringfellow, appellant's intestate; that the Munsons, instead of making the deeds as directed and according to the agreement of the parties, by inadvertence and mistake conveyed the entire tract to Joseph Stringfellow. She charges that Joseph Stringfellow, as soon as his father, Chesley Stringfellow, died, set up an exclusive claim to the whole tract, and denied her right to any part of it.

By an amended petition, the plaintiff alleged that her husband, Chesley Stringfellow, at the time of his purchase, paid M. S. and George P. Munson a valuable and full consideration for the land, and charged Joseph Stringfellow with fraud, in obtaining the deed to himself for the whole tract, and that he held one-half of it in trust for her.

It is recited in the deed from George P. Munson and M. S. Munson to Joseph Stringfellow, and which was read in evidence by the plaintiff in the court below, that the consideration for the tract of one hundred acres mentioned in the deed and in plaintiff's petition was paid by Joseph Stringfellow. The consideration, as stated in the deed, was the relinquishment by Joseph Stringfellow to the Munsons of a lease of part of the Munson “home tract known as the Oakland Place,” with all the property mentioned in the lease, and also admitting full satisfaction for all work done and money expended on the place.

It appears from the evidence that the Munsons leased to Joseph Stringfellow, and not to his father, Chesley Stringfellow, the premises described in the deed. This was clearly shown by the evidence of G. P. Munson on the trial. It was shown that Joseph Stringfellow and his father and family moved to the place soon after the lease, and after remaining there some time--how long the witness does not say--he heard Chesley Stringfellow say, in the presence of Joseph Stringfellow, that he had bought out Joseph's interest in the lease; and soon after Joseph left the place. At the instance of G. P. Munson, who, it would seem, was not willing that Joseph should leave the premises, he, Joseph, returned to the place, and soon thereafter Munson purchased the lease, and both Chesley and Joseph Stringfellow moved off the land, the former immediately and the latter in the course of two or three weeks. The same witness states that the transaction about the purchase of the land was with Chesley Stringfellow, but in the presence of his son Joseph. It was not proved, as averred in the petition, that Chesley Stringfellow purchased the land and paid for it; but, on the contrary, it...