Hynes v. Packard
| Decision Date | 25 April 1898 |
| Citation | 45 S.W. 562 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | HYNES et al. v. PACKARD. |
Action by John Q. Packard against John F. Hynes and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appealed to the court of civil appeals for the First district, where the judgment was affirmed. 44 S. W. 548. Defendants brought error. Reversed.
Proctors, for plaintiffs in error. Samuel B. Dabney, for defendant in error.
The facts alleged were sufficient to sustain an action for breach of warranty of title, and the trial seems to have been had in the court below upon the theory that the suit was to recover upon the warranty. The court of civil appeals so treated the case, and we think it unnecessary to review any of the assignments of error based upon rulings upon exceptions directed against allegations which presented a different phase of the case. The application for a writ of error contains only such grounds as relate to the right to recover upon the alleged breach of warranty and to have the injunction perpetuated. Considering it as an action for damages accruing from a breach of warranty of title, the following are the material facts found by the court of civil appeals: On March 2, 1891, John F. Hynes conveyed to John Q. Packard an undivided one-fourth interest in about 28 tracts of land, aggregating 35,000 acres, inherited from his father, for a consideration of $27,782.92. The deed described each tract in which an interest was conveyed, including the two tracts of which it is alleged there is a failure of title; the one being a league of land granted by the government of Coahuila and Texas to Peter Hynes, and the other a quarter of a league granted by the same government to John Hynes. The deed of conveyance from plaintiff in error to defendant in error contained a covenant of general warranty of title to the undivided one-fourth interest in all of the different surveys. All of the purchase money was paid except one note for $6,573.96. At the time the deed was made to him, Packard executed a deed of trust to John Little authorizing him, in case of default in the payment of the notes described in the deed of trust, to sell the land, and discharge the notes, and also authorizing and empowering John F. Hynes, under certain circumstances, to appoint a substitute trustee; and, the contingency named having happened, F. C. Proctor was made substitute, who, in accordance with the terms of the deed of trust, advertised the land for sale, Packard having failed to pay the note mentioned above at its maturity. The two Hynes surveys extended across Hynes Bay, and included in their boundaries, as given in the deed of conveyance, 1,209.26 acres of the navigable water area of the bay Hynes Bay connects with the Espiritu Santo Bay, and the latter connects with the Gulf of Mexico, so that the water area embraced as above stated lies beyond the coast line, and the title did not pass by the grant made to Peter Hynes and John Hynes, under whom plaintiff in error claimed, and the title to so much of the land conveyed by John F. Hynes to Packard has failed. After the notices of sale had been posted by the trustee, Packard tendered to Hynes and the trustee a sufficient amount of money to discharge the debt, after allowing him a credit for one-fourth of the value of 1,209.26 acres at $4 per acre, and, the tender being refused, Packard sued out an injunction restraining Proctor, the trustee, from selling the land under the deed of trust, tendering into court the money which had been tendered to John F. Hynes, and setting up all the facts necessary to entitle him, if found true, to a deduction of the value of the land. The petition prayed that the plaintiff in error be compelled to accept the amount tendered in satisfaction of the unpaid note, that it be canceled, and that the trustee, Proctor, be perpetually enjoined from selling the land under the deed of trust. The petition alleged that the portion to which title had failed "is of little or no value," but alleged that the purchase was made at the rate of four dollars per acre, and claimed a reduction of the purchase money at that rate. Upon a trial of the case the judge of the district court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for a sum sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Balli
...N.C. 226; Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 16 Pet. [367], 369 , 10 L.Ed. 997.' That opinion was approved by this court in Hynes v. Packard, 92 Tex. [44], 49, 45 S.W. [562], 563, saying: `In Rosborough v. Picton, 12 Tex.Civ.App. 113, 34 S.W. 791 , the title to the same land was involved, and the ......
-
Apalachicola Land & Development Co. v. Mcrae
...of the sea, run across the bay in reaching the land on the opposite side to be delineated as a part of the concession. See Hynes v. Packard, 92 Tex. 44, 45 S.W. 562; Rosborough v. Picton, 12 Tex.Civ.App. 113, 34 791, 43 S.W. 1033. See, also, Peck v. Lockwood, 5 Day (Conn.) 22, text 28; Moul......
-
Schneider v. Lipscomb County Nat. Farm Loan Ass'n
...damages, that is, as to the relative values of the land to which the title failed and of the whole premises conveyed. See Hynes v. Packard, 92 Tex. 44, 49, 45 S.W. 562. We are remanding the case generally rather than for the trial merely of severable issues, since most of the material facts......
-
State v. Bradford
...Tex. Civ. App. 113, 34 S. W. 791, 43 S. W. 1033, and cases cited therein; Landry v. Robison, 110 Tex. 295, 219 S. W. 819; Hynes v. Packard, 92 Tex. 44, 45 S. W. 562. The rule is also firmly established that land under navigable waters passes by grant or sale only when so expressly provided ......