Lasater v. Van Hook
| Decision Date | 17 June 1890 |
| Citation | 14 S.W. 270 |
| Parties | LASATER <I>et al.</I> v. VAN HOOK <I>et ux.</I> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
J. H. Van Hook, and V. A. Van Hook, his wife, brought this suit October 5, 1886, against J. D. Lasater and T. M. Coulson, in trespass to try title to 160 acres of land out of the north-east corner of the Matthew Pickens 640-acre survey. Both defendants answered by plea of not guilty. By supplemental petition filed August 29, 1887, plaintiffs alleged that on the 1st day of June, 1882, defendant Coulson, joined by W. B. Hutchison, entered upon the land sued for as tenants of plaintiffs, under a written agreement of lease, by the terms of which Coulson and Hutchison agreed to pay plaintiffs $9.60 per annum rent therefor, for a term of five years; that the term of said lease had expired, and Coulson refuses to pay the rent or return the premises to plaintiffs; that by reason of Coulson having entered on said premises as tenant of plaintiffs, and his failure to return the possession at the expiration of the lease, he is estopped from denying plaintiffs' title. Defendant Coulson, by supplemental answer, denied tenancy under plaintiffs as alleged in the supplemental petition. The trial without a jury resulted in judgment for plaintiffs for the land, and the defendants appealed.
Hunter, Stewart & Dunklin, for appellants. Arnold & Glasgow and Rector, Thomson & Rector, for appellees.
ACKER, J., (after stating the facts.)
The first assignment of error is: "The court erred in not rendering judgment for appellants, J. D. Lasater and T. M. Coulson, the appellees not having introduced any evidence to show the title to the land in controversy had passed out of the state of Texas, as shown by bill of exception No. 1." It appears from bils of exception Nos. 1 and 2 that when plaintiffs offered in evidence the deed from V. T. Pickens to Sarah J. Bullion defendants objected to its introduction "because it became necessary for plaintiff to introduce as a first link of title the patents or other evidence showing that the state had parted with its title," and "because it did not appear from the certificate of authentication attached to said deed that the witness proving the same for record was known to the officer taking said proof." Sarah J. Bullion was common source of title as to plaintiffs and defendant Coulson, except as to the deed from his co-defendant Lasater, executed after the suit was instituted, which could not prevail against the title of plaintiffs of which defendant Coulson had notice, and which his vendor and co-defendant, Lasater, testified he had always recognized as valid. So, as to defendant Coulson, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove title back of Sarah J. Bullion, and they might have omitted the introduction of the deed from V. T. Pickens to her. It is true that defendant Lasater proved title from V. T. Pickens, surviving wife of Matthew Pickens, the original grantee, by transfer of the certificate to him, but testified that he employed M. D. Bullion to locate the certificate for the consideration of one-fourth, or 160 acres, of the land; that he only claimed 480 acres, and that there was no conflict between his and the Bullion claim; that he had always recognized the Bullion title to 160 acres as valid, and that, at Bullion's request, he conveyed the 160 acres to Mrs. Bullion. From Lasater's testimony it is evident that his conveyance to his co-defendant, Coulson, after this suit was brought conveyed no title superior to plaintiff's to the land sued for. According to the testimony of Lasater, he has no interest in this suit, and we cannot understand why he is an appellant here. We think it clearly appears that Coulson is the only party claiming as against the plaintiff's title, and that, as to him, Sarah J. Bullion was common source, and that the ruling of the court on the objection to the deed to her was immaterial.
The third assignment of error is: "The court erred in admitting in evidence, over appellants' objection, a lease to W. B. Hutchison and T. M....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenville, N. & S. T. Ry. Co. v. Wheat
...Tex. Civ. App. 253, 115 S. W. 876; May v. Pollard, 28 Tex. 677; Smith v. Shinn, 58 Tex. 3; Hays v. Samuels, 55 Tex. 563; Lasater v. Van Hook, 77 Tex. 655, 14 S. W. 270; Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470, 10 S. W. 288; Phipps v. Willis, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 186, 32 S. W. The remaining assignments ......
-
Carmichael v. Reed
... ... also, Peterson v. Ankrom, 25 W.Va. 56. A Texas case ... held a copy verified by comparison with a certified copy to ... be inadmissible. Lasater v. Van Hook, 77 Tex. 650, ... 14 S.W. 270. And in Oregon a certified copy of a certified ... copy, though of a map, was held clearly incompetent ... ...
-
Fidelity Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Mitchell
...be fatal to the judgment. Combest v. Wall (Tex. Civ. App.) 115 S. W. 354; Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470, 10 S. W. 288; Lasater v. Van Hook, 77 Tex. 650, 14 S. W. 270. It is next contended that the policy sued on was not a "valued policy," and that there was no proof of actual loss. We held......
-
Biddy v. State
...the author cites a great many cases, among others York v. Gregg, 9 Tex. 85; Harvey v. Cummings, 68 Tex. 599, 5 S. W. 513; Lasater v. Van Hook, 77 Tex. 650, 14 S. W. 270. But in regard to the introduction of this character of testimony, known as "examined copies," the statute in our state au......