Johnson v. Masterson Irr. Co.

Citation217 S.W. 407
Decision Date14 November 1919
Docket Number(No. 489.)
PartiesJOHNSON et al. v. MASTERSON IRR. CO.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; J. Llewellyn, Judge.

Action by the Masterson Irrigation Company against A. H. Inglett and another, in which J. F. Johnson and others intervened. Judgment for plaintiff, and the interveners appeal. Affirmed.

M. H. Broyles and R. H. Holland, both of Houston, for appellants.

J. E. Winfree, of Houston, for appellee.

HIGHTOWER, C. J.

This was an action in the statutory form of trespass to try title, commenced by Masterson Irrigation Company, who is the appellee here, against A. H. Inglett and William Woodley, in the district court of Montgomery county, and involved the title to approximately 100 acres of land, a part of the Neal Martin survey in that county. Defendants, Inglett and Woodley, answered, disclaiming any interest in the land, and alleged that they were simply in possession as tenants under other persons, who afterwards intervened in the suit, and these interveners are the appellants here. One of these interveners, J. F. Johnson, is the father by a former wife of all the other appellants herein.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee, Masterson Irrigation Company, against defendants and all interveners for the land in controversy.

On April 5, 1913, J. F. Johnson and his present wife executed a deed of trust to one M. T. Masterson, to secure the payment of Johnson's note in the sum of $1,200 made in favor of H. Masterson of Harris county, Tex., and this note was never paid by J. F. Johnson, and a substitute trustee in the deed of trust, J. E. Winfree, sold the land on the 5th day of June, 1917, to the Masterson Irrigation Company, the appellee, for the consideration of $500. J. F. Johnson, in his plea of intervention, alleged, substantially, that the deed of trust that he executed on the land was void, for the reason that at the time he executed it the land in controversy constituted his homestead, he being a married man and the head of his family, and that it had always been his homestead, and been actually occupied by him as such from the date of its purchase by him in 1893. The other interveners alleged, substantially, that the land in controversy was community property, owned by their deceased mother and their said father, Frank Johnson, and that upon the death of their mother, which occurred in 1908, title to her one-half of this land descended to them as her legal heirs, and that, while their father, Frank Johnson, had executed the deed of trust under which the land was sold to appellee in this case, nevertheless no title was conveyed to their half interest therein, they not joining in such deed of trust nor authorizing its execution by him, not having any knowledge of the execution by him of such deed of trust; that they had never parted with their title to said land; and that appellee had never acquired any title to their portion of this land. To the petition in intervention of J. F. Johnson, appellee answered by general demurrer and general denial, and specially alleged the execution of the deed of trust by J. F. Johnson and his present wife to secure the payment of the note in favor of H. Masterson, as hereinbefore stated, and specially alleged in that connection that at the time of the execution of such note and deed of trust the said J. F. Johnson expressly declared that the 100 acres of land here involved constituted no part of his homestead, and that he was not occupying any part of same, and that in the deed of trust itself the said Johnson specially declared that the land here involved constituted no part of his homestead, and therein designated other and different land as constituting his homestead, and that appellee believed such declarations on the part of said Johnson and his present wife, and in good faith believed that the land in controversy constituted no part of his homestead, and, so believing, H. Masterson advanced said loan and took said deed of trust to secure the payment of said note, and that the said Johnson and wife are now estopped to claim said land as their homestead, and are estopped to deny the validity of said deed of trust, etc.

To the plea in intervention of the other appellants, the children of Frank Johnson by the former marriage, appellee alleged, substantially, that on the 12th day of April, 1913, and for many years prior thereto, the title to the land here involved was in J. F. Johnson, father of said children interveners; that it remained in him until the 21st day of January, 1913, when he conveyed same to one Wash Davenport; that subsequent to that time, to wit, on May 5, 1913, Wash Davenport reconveyed said land to said J. F. Johnson; that the legal title to said land then remained in said J. F. Johnson until June 5, 1917, when plaintiff purchased same at trustee's sale, paying value therefor, and without any notice of any equitable or outstanding title whatever, save that in J. F. Johnson; that the records of Montgomery county failed to show that Emma Jane Cook Johnson, who was the mother of the intervening children here, ever had title to said land, but, on the contrary, showed at the time that the note and deed of trust were executed, by virtue of which the sale was made at which plaintiff bought, that the legal title to said land was in J. F. Johnson; that plaintiff had no actual or constructive notice at the time of the trustee's sale of any one's claim to said land other than the legal title as asserted by the said J. F. Johnson; that plaintiff was an innocent purchaser, for value, of said land, and that said intervening children were estopped from setting up any claim to said land, and prayed for judgment against all of them for the title and possession of said land, rents, etc.

Upon request of appellants, the trial court filed the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

"(1) On the 8th day of March, 1893, J. F. Johnson or Frank Johnson, purchased from J. W. Bird the land in suit, and received a deed from J. W. Bird. At the time said J. F. or Frank Johnson received the deed from J. W. Bird, he was a married man, his wife being Emma Jane Cook Johnson, and the said Emma Jane Cook Johnson is the mother of interveners, Lily Johnson Campbell, Annie B. Johnson Moses, James Johnson, Oscar Johnson, Mamie Johnson King, Ardmore Johnson Perkins, and Elmore Johnson.

"(2) On the ___ day of ___, 1908, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Llewellyn v. First Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 2, 1924
    ...v. Doering (Tex. Civ. App.) 203 S. W. 802 (W. R.); Ferguson v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S. W. 966 (W. R.); Johnson v. Irrigation Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 217 S. W. 407 (W. R.). The initials "W. R." denote that writ of error was The evidence conclusively establishes that the property in suit w......
  • Wilson v. Alexander, 12667.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 25, 1932
    ...264 S. W. 586; Marshburn v. Stewart (Tex. Civ. App.) 295 S. W. 679; Allen v. Berkmier (Tex. Civ. App.) 216 S. W. 647; Johnson v. Company (Tex. Civ. App.) 217 S. W. 407; Llewellyn v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 222; 21 C. J. pages 1089 and 1111; Alldredge v. Wilson (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S......
  • Earnest v. Earnest
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • September 26, 1949
    ...court, although no specific exceptions are taken thereto. Voight et al. v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S.W. 623; Johnson et al. v. Masterson Irr. Co., Tex. Civ.App., 217 S.W. 407; Reed et al. v. Murphy, Tex.Civ.App., 276 S.W. 951; Weir v. King, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d In attacking the court's ju......
  • First Texas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Chapman
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 6, 1932
    ...those from which we have quoted, to wit: Calvin v. Neel (Tex. Civ. App.) 191 S. W. 791, writ of error denied; Johnson v. Masterson Irrigation Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 217 S. W. 407, writ of error denied; Llewellyn v. First National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 222; Leslie v. Elliott, 26 Tex.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT