Latta v. Wiley
| Decision Date | 13 December 1905 |
| Citation | 92 S.W. 433 |
| Parties | LATTA et al. v. WILEY et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; J. M. Goggin, Judge.
Action by W. B. Latta and another against W. W. Wiley and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Patterson, Buckler & Woodson, for appellants. Patterson & Wallace and Turney & Burges, for appellees.
On April 8, 1904, the appellants, W. B. Latta and Felix Martinez, sued the appellees, W. W. Wiley, C. B. Patterson, and George Wallace, in trespass to try title, to recover possession of lots Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, and 11 to 19, inclusive, in block 45 of Campbell's Addition to the city of El Paso. The defendants answered by a plea of not guilty, and the 10-years' statute of limitation. The case was tried without a jury, and the judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
Conclusions of Fact.
On March 7, 1887, the Campbell Real Estate Company, a domestic corporation, had a regular chain of title to the land in controversy from the state of Texas down to itself. On August 8, 1898, the said real estate company by its deed of that date conveyed the lots sued for to E. A. Caples; which deed was a general warranty, expressed a consideration of $500 cash and 52 promissory notes for $25 each, payable in from 1 to 52 months after said date, and was filed for record and duly recorded on August 17, 1898. On March 27, 1901, E. A. Caples, by his warranty deed, expressing a consideration of $1,800 cash and two notes for $1,500 each due 1 and 2 years from said date, conveyed the 17 lots, and other real estate in El Paso, Tex., sued for, to W. B. Latta, P. F. Hammet, and Felix Martinez. On August 6, 1901, P. F. Hammet by his deed of that date conveyed an undivided one-third interest of the 17 lots (and other property) to Felix Martinez; the consideration expressed being $600 cash and the assumption of paying the two notes of $1,500 each, above mentioned. This deed was duly recorded on August 7, 1901. On February 11, 1902, Felix Martinez by his deed of that date conveyed to W. B. Latta an undivided one-sixth of the 17 lots (and other property) for the express consideration of $800 and the grantee's agreement to pay one-half of the two $1,500 notes before mentioned. This deed was duly recorded on February 12, 1902. On June 1, 1903, W. B. Latta and Felix Martinez signed and acknowedged an agreement in writing to the effect that each was the owner of an undivided one-half of the 17 lots in controversy.
On October 20, 1897, the Campbell Real Estate Cmpany filed suit in the district court of El Paso county, Tex. (34th Judicial District), against W. W. Wiley, one of appellees in the present case, in trespass to try title to recover the land in controversy. Which case was docketed in said court as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 2,743. | The Campbell Real Estate | Sequestration. | Filed Oct. 20, 1897. | Citation and copy issued
| Co. | | | 10-20-97
Beall & Kemp, Plff.'s | | | |
Attys. | v. | | |
| | | |
Jay Good, Deft.'s Atty. | W. W. Wiley. | | | Sequestration issued
| | | | same day
The appearance docket, at the January term, 1898, showed, opposite the style of the case, in the handwriting of the judge of the court, the following entry: "Defendant demand a jury, and leave to file amended answer and make parties, January 7th." In the minutes of the court (Thirty-Fourth district) appears the following entry: On the civil nonjury docket, opposite case No. 2,743, Campbell Real Estate Company v. W. W. Wiley, April term, 1902, the following entry, in lead pencil, in the handwriting of Judge Walthall, then judge of the Thirty-Fourth judicial district, appears: This memorandum was not signed, nor was there any order entered in the minutes of the court transferring the case from the Thirty-Fourth district court to the Forty-First district court of El Paso county. The docket of the district court of El Paso county, Tex., Forty-First District, shows case of Campbell Real Estate Company v. W. W. Wiley docketed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 2,743 (34th) 175. | Campbell Real Estate Company | Sequestration. | Filed Oct. 20, 1897
| | |
Beall & Kemp, Attys. for Plff. | | |
| | |
Patterson & Wallace, Attys. | | |
for Deft. | W. W. Wiley. | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case was placed on the jury docket of the Forty-First district for the October term, 1902, and appears on said docket as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Real Estate Co., | Suit in Sequestration. | Filed Oct. 20th, 1897
No. 174 v. | |
W. W. Wiley. | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposite the style of the case, in the handwriting of Judge J. M. Goggin, there appears on the docket the following entry: It was proven that the "No. 174" was a mistake, and was that of another case; the correct number being 175. The case was carried forward on the docket as No. 174 to the September term, 1903, when it was docketed by its correct number, 175. On the docket, where it appears by its true number, opposite the style of the case appears, in lead pencil, the following memorandum: It was admitted on the trial that the Campbell Real Estate Company, who sold the property involved to E. A. Caples, was the plaintiff in case No. 2,743 on the docket of the Thirty-Fourth district court. On January 23, 1904, judgment was rendered in the district court of El Paso county, 41st district, in cause No. 175, styled "Campbell Real Estate Company v. W. W. Wiley," in favor of W. W. Wiley against the Campbell Real Estate Company (a corporation) for title and possession of lots Nos. 1 to 20, inclusive, in block 45, according to what is known as the map of Campbell's addition to the city of El Paso, El Paso county, Tex.; said judgment having been rendered against the Campbell Real Estate Company upon its petition and in favor of the defendant, W. W. Wiley, upon his plea in reconvention. This judgment was, on November 16, 1904, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District of the state of Texas. 83 S. W. 251.
The plaintiffs' amended original petition, on which the above case was tried, after stating the number (175) and style of the case, proceeds as follows: "Now comes the plaintiff, the Campbell Real Estate Company, by its attorneys, in the above styled, and numbered cause, and by leave of the court first had and obtained, amends its original petition heretofore filed in this case on the 20th day of October, 1897, and in lieu thereof plaintiff represents * * * that defendant W. W. Wiley is a resident of El Paso county in said state; that heretofore, to wit, on the 1st day of October, 1897, plaintiff was lawfully seised and possesed of a certain tract of land hereinafter described, situated in El Paso county and state of Texas, holding the same in fee simple; that on the day and year last aforesaid, said defendant entered upon said premises and ejected plaintiff therefrom and unlawfully withholds the possession thereof; * * * that the premises so entered upon and unlawfully withheld by defendant from plaintiff is described as follows: Being block 45, designated on map known as Campbell's map of the city of El Paso." The petition concludes with the usual prayer. It was indorsed as follows: Then follows the signature of the clerk of the court. The amended answer of defendant Wiley, in said case, which was filed on the 15th of June, 1903, consisted of pleas of not guilty, the 10-years' statute of limitation, and a plea in reconvention based upon title alleged to have been acquired under and by virtue of the 10-year statute of limitation.
deed of that date conveyed to George E. Wallace and C. B. Patterson, his codefendants in this case, an undivided one-half interest in lots 1 to 20 inclusive in block 45 according to the map of Campbell's Addition to the city of El Paso, Tex.; the deed reciting a consideration of one dollar and legal services.
It is shown by the evidence that the original papers in the case were lost, and, since the 11th day of September, 1900, have not been in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte James
...stand and repel assaults of [an] adversary." Henderson v. Applegate, 203 S.W.2d 548, 552 (Tex.Civ.App.1947). See also Latta v. Wiley, 92 S.W. 433, 437 (Tex.Civ.App.1906). Under Alabama caselaw, a judgment is void if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of......
-
McDonald v. Rankin
...Law, 88; 92 S.W. 820; 91 Id. 472; 66 N.E. 503; 65 S.W. 662; 125 N.C. 76. It does not matter whether he had notice or not. 91 P. 573; 92 S.W. 433; 70 Ark. 415; 57 Ark. 107; Id. 493; 45 Id. 419; 53 Id. 571; 48 Id. 189; 57 Id. 573, 107; 117 Mass. 393. The doctrine of lis pendens does not depen......
-
Kelly v. D Realty Invs., Inc. (In re Kelly), Case No. 16–33627–hdh13
...Pingenot , 49 Tex.Civ.App. 641, 90 S.W. 672 (1905), writ refused ; Grayson v. Peyton , 67 S.W. 1074 (Tex. App. 1902) ; Latta v. Wiley , 92 S.W. 433 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905), writ refused ; Bowles v. Bryan , 277 S.W. 760, 763–65 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925), writ dismissed w.o.j (Jan. 27, 1926); Brohl......
-
Blaffer v. State
...S. W. 427; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. McGehee, 49 Tex. 482; New York & T. Land Co. v. Votaw (Tex. Civ. App.) 52 S. W. 125; Latta v. Wiley (Tex. Civ. App.) 92 S. W. 433; McAllen v. Crafts (Tex. Civ. App.) 139 S. W. 41; Dunn v. Land (Tex. Civ. App.) 193 S. W. 698; Taylor v. Loan Co. (Tex. Civ......
-
CHAPTER 3 WHEN TO GO BEYOND RECORD TITLE - THE DUTY TO INQUIRE
...to papers that were lost by the clerk. Kropp v. Prather, 526 S.W. 2d 283 (Tex. Civ. App.--Tyler 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Latta v. Wiley, 92 S.W. 433 (Tex. Civ. App. 1905, writ ref'd). A lis pendens imparts constructive notice only while the underlying cause of action is pending; however, i......