Imperial Sugar Co. v. Cabell
Decision Date | 01 July 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 6736.) |
Parties | IMPERIAL SUGAR CO. v. CABELL et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ft. Bend County; Samuel J. Styles, Judge.
Action by the Imperial Sugar Company against Ben E. Cabell and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Lane, Wolters & Storey and Wm. A. Vinson, all of Houston, Williams & Neethe, of Galveston, D. R. Peareson and Thos. B. Peareson, both of Richmond, and Hill & Eakins, of Huntsville, for appellant. B. F. Looney, Atty. Gen., and G. B. Smedley and C. M. Cureton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellees.
This is an action of trespass to try title, brought by the appellant against Ben E. Cabell, L. W. Tittle, and R. W. Brahan to recover about 5,200 acres of land, known as the "Sartartia Plantation," in Ft. Bend county. The defendants, by plea in abatement, disclaimed any right, title, or interest in the land sued for as individuals, and alleged that they together constituted the board of prison commissioners of the state of Texas, and as such were holding the land in question for the state of Texas, and as officers of the state; that the fee-simple title to said land was in the state of Texas, and not in the defendants, or either of them; that, while the suit was brought against them, the effect of a judgment against them would be to divest the title to said land out of the state of Texas; that the suit was in fact against the state, and could not be maintained under the laws and Constitution of Texas. In their first amended original answer the defendants, both by exception and plea, raised substantially the same question. It was further specially alleged that the respective rights and contentions of the parties arose out of the following transaction, viz.: That on February 17, 1908, the Imperial Sugar Company executed and delivered to W. H. Gill, R. H. Hicks, and J. T. Mewshaw, the then board of penitentiary commissioners of Texas, a general warranty deed to the land in question, and also to a large amount of personal property therein described, for the use and benefit of the state of Texas; that as a part of the same transaction, although not contemporaneously executed, the said board of penitentiary commissioners executed and delivered to the Imperial Sugar Company a certain instrument in writing, the two instruments being executed, it was alleged, as the result of a verbal agreement and negotiations between the Imperial Sugar Company and the board of penitentiary commissioners.
The deed referred to in defendants' answer is a deed of general warranty executed by the appellant, and conveys to the persons last above named, composing the board of penitentiary commissioners, for the use and benefit of the state of Texas, the land in controversy, and also the following personal property:
"134 hogs, 139 work mules, 17 saddle horses, 80 tram cars, 75 sections of portable track, 49 cultivators, 16 disc cultivators, 115 turning plows, 6 disc plows, 35 sweep stocks, 7 stubble shavers, 5 stubble diggers, 8 middle bursters, 13 subsoilers, 6 cane scrapers, 12 cotton planters, 2 mowing machines, 30 hoes, 6 post hole diggers, 3 rice seeders, 12 shovels, 10 spades, 20 stubble hoes, 12 briar hooks, 30 axes, 6 scrapers, 6 pitchforks, a large number of double and single trees, 150 cane knives, 60 sets of plow gear, 17 cane wagons (secondhand), 10 cane wagons (new), 9 road wagons, 2 good graders, 1 corn crusher, about 20 dozen tract chains for unloading cane, 6 saddles for guards, 18 wagon saddles, and 3 complete derricks; about 1,000 bushels of ear corn, 2 large barns of crushed corn, about 50 tons of rice bran, about 200 bales of alfalfa and hay, 75 bushels of field peas, about 1,500 bushels of cotton seed for planting purposes; also one blacksmith and wheelwright shop and tools; also a large amount of repair material, such as clev lap links, etc., and such other similar personalty and chattels as were on hand and used in connection with the plantation, and all machinery improvements and buildings of every description then on the land."
Following the covenant of general warranty the deed contains the following:
Here follows a number of mutual agreements and covenants, among which are the following:
The agreement referred to in defendants' pleading is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hampton v. State Board of Education
... ... Bailey, 10 Fla. 112, text 132, 81 Am. Dec. 194, are not ... applicable here. See Imperial Sugar Co. v. Cabell (Tex ... Civ. App.) 179 S.W. 83 ... A state ... cannot be sued ... ...
-
Alcorn v. Vaksman
...121 Tex. 80, 42 S.W.2d 228 (1931) (no consent required for action to compel refund of illegally collected taxes); Imperial Sugar Co. v. Cabell, 179 S.W. 83, 89 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1915, no writ) (trespass to try title).7 Mt. Healthy is cited in Jones II as "City School Dist. Board of E......
-
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. Sawyer Trust
...on the rule of United States v. Lee as that rule has been adopted and applied by the courts of this state in Imperial Sugar Co. v. Cabell [179 S.W. 83 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1915) ] and State v. Epperson [121 Tex. 80, 42 S.W.2d 228 (1931) ], a limitation vigorously questioned in the dissen......
-
Dillard v. Austin Independent School Dist.
...writ ref'd and reh'g overruled per curiam, 108 Tex. 14, 191 S.W. 1138, 108 Tex. 14, 193 S.W. 139 (1917); Imperial Sugar Co. v. Cabell, 179 S.W. 83, 88-89 (Tex.Civ.App.1915, no writ); Conley v. Daughters of the Republic, 151 S.W. 877, 881 (Tex.Civ.App.1912), rev'd on other grounds, 106 Tex. ......