Hurst v. Knight
Decision Date | 21 February 1914 |
Citation | 164 S.W. 1072 |
Parties | HURST v. KNIGHT et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; W. R. Spencer, Judge.
Action by Mary Hurst against L. A. Knight and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
R. A. Sowder, of Lubbock, and A. H. Mount, of Royse City, for appellant. Randolph & Randolph, of Plainview, and Synnott & Underwood, of Amarillo, for appellees.
The appellant, Mary Hurst, filed this suit in the district court of Lubbock county, to recover a judgment against defendants, L. A. Knight, J. R. De Lay, and R. E. Burch, for the amount of three vendor's lien notes for $1,000 each and sought to foreclose the vendor's lien on a certain section of land in Lubbock county, patented to N. H. Mill. The petition alleges the execution and delivery of the deed by appellant, Mary Hurst, and by Anist Hurst and Guy Hurst, to R. E. Burch, who executed the three notes sued upon. It is further alleged that Burch had conveyed the land to the defendants Knight and De Lay, who assumed the payment of said notes. The defendants allege that in the original transaction Mary Hurst, Anist Hurst, and Guy Hurst were represented by G. E. Mayes as their duly authorized agent; that James R. De Lay represented himself and the defendant Burch and closed the deal in Burch's name, purchasing the land for both; that Mayes, the agent of plaintiff, and Guy Hurst, represented to De Lay that the land belonged to Mary Hurst and that she had a good and perfect title thereto, and that De Lay communicated these statements to Burch and also to Knight when he purchased Burch's undivided interest in the land; that defendants were not lawyers and did not examine the title, but had great confidence in Mayes and accepted in full faith the representations of Guy Hurst and Mayes that the title was perfect, and, relying thereon, paid part of the purchase price in cash and, still relying thereon, paid the first three notes as they became due; that after the payment of the first note they applied for a loan on the land, which was refused because the title to the property was not good; that after discovering these defects they called upon the plaintiff, Mary Hurst, to correct the defects in the title and offered to pay the remaining notes if she would remove the defects, and even proposed to pay two of the notes if she would agree to extend the third to a time when the defects could be remedied; that she refused to make any attempt to do so and refused to extend the notes.
The defects in the title are set out, in substance, as follows: (1) A deed of trust executed by Paris Cox to A. Pruitt, trustee, to secure Burns-Walker & Co. in the payment of a note for $286.68, dated August 13, 1886, due December 1, 1886, and recorded in Lubbock county, August 13, 1886; that no release of the lien is shown by the records of Lubbock county or has been made. (2) Deed from Paris Cox and wife to E. Z. Derbyshire, and a deed from Edmund Derbyshire and wife to Willets M. and Gurney G. Derbyshire, dated January 7, 1898. This instrument is signed "Derdyshire" and in the certificate of acknowledgment the name appears as "Derbyshire." (3) Deed from Gurney and Willets M. Derbyshire to C. E. Spath, dated January 16, 1902, conveying the premises in question and reserving the vendor's lien to secure the payment of five notes for $100 each, and a release executed by G. G. and W. M. Derbyshire to C. E. Spath, dated March 21, 1905, reciting the payment of four of the notes described in the deed and the release of the vendor's lien securing the payment of said notes. (4) Deed from Dude Hurst to Mary Hurst, Guy Hurst, and Anist Hurst, conveying a life interest to Mary Hurst, with remainder to Guy Hurst and Anist Hurst, for a consideration of $1,000 paid and the assumption of all debts of the grantor by Mary Hurst.
Deeds were introduced in evidence tending to show the defects complained of. The judgment of the court decreed the cancellation of the deeds and notes, and judgment is rendered in favor of James R. De Lay and L. A. Knight, against Mary Hurst, in the sum of $5,160, the amount paid upon the purchase price of the land, with 6 per cent. thereon from date of judgment, with a lien against the land to secure its payment. For some reason unexplained in the record, a nonsuit was taken by plaintiff as to the defendant Burch. The court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cleveland v. Ward
...§§ 126 to 139; 4 Ruling Case Law, p. 517, § 29; Business Men's Oil Co. v. Priddy (Tex. Com. App.) 250 S. W. 156, 158; Hurst v. Knight (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 1072; American Cotton Co. v. Collier, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 105, 69 S. W. 1021 (writ refused); Jones v. Nix (Tex. Civ. App.) 174 S. W.......
-
Bishop v. Sanford
...should proceed further until the omission is corrected, although no objection is made by any party litigant." Citing Hurst v. Knight (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 1072, with cases from other jurisdictions supporting the general In 47 C. J. 91, § 182, the rule in Texas with reference to necessa......
-
Files v. Spencer
...the author cites the Texas case from which we quoted above, and also Culbertson v. Blanchard, 79 Tex. 486, 15 S. W. 700; Hurst v. Knight (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 1072. In addition to the cases there cited and those cited in Ramirez v. Barton, supra, we cite the following: Buchanan v. Burn......
-
Perkins v. Terrell
...and to cancel a deed executed by Gillespie. We think, therefore, that the said Gillespie was a necessary party to the suit. Hurst v. Knight, 164 S. W. 1072; Monday v. Vance, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 374, 32 S. W. 559; C. J. vol. 9, pp. 1225-1227; Black on Cancellation & Rescission, vol. 2, § 657. ......