Lauchheimer v. Saunders
| Decision Date | 11 December 1901 |
| Citation | 65 S.W. 500 |
| Parties | LAUCHHEIMER et al. v. SAUNDERS (COOP, Intervener). |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Coryell county; W. J. Oxford, Special Judge.
Injunction by J. R. Saunders against M. H. Lauchheimer & Sons and others to restrain an execution sale, in which one Coop intervened. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
T. F. Bryan, for appellants. McDowell & Sadler and H. N. Atkinson, for appellee. J. H. Arnold, for intervener.
This is the third appeal of this case. The first is reported in 47 S. W. 543. The second appeal will be found in 57 S. W. 70. These two cases are referred to for a history of the case and the questions involved. In the case we are now considering, judgment of the trial court was in favor of appellee, Saunders, on the homestead issue, the effect of which was to determine that the property in controversy was his homestead at the time that the appellant Lauchheimer and the intervener, Coop, undertook to fix their liens upon the same. On the question as to whether the execution lien of appellant Lauchheimer, or the deed of trust lien of intervener, was superior, we are of the opinion that the ruling of the court in favor of the intervener was correct. The court in its charge, in effect, instructed the jury that the lien fixed by the deed of trust was superior to the appellant's execution lien; and, if the property in controversy was not the homestead of Saunders, then the verdict should be in favor of the intervener. The appellant attacked the deed of trust and the deed in favor of intervener, by virtue of which he asserts title to the property in controversy, on the ground that these two instruments did not describe or convey the 100 acres in controversy. The deed of trust in favor of intervener and the deed subsequently executed to him describe certain parcels and tracts of land conveyed by those two instruments, and have a general clause to the effect that it was the intention of Saunders to convey all of his real estate in Coryell county, whether described or not, except his homestead. There is nothing upon the face of the deed of trust and the deed executed in pursuance thereof to indicate any inconsistency between this general description and the descriptive matter identifying the particular tracts described and mentioned in the instruments. The evident purpose of the grantor was to convey the property specially described, as well as all other that he might at that time have owned, situated in Coryell county. The special mention and description of particular tracts or parcels of land given in the instruments could not be construed as a restriction and limitation upon the other intention of the grantor, as is indicated by the general granting clause, conveying all other lands that were not described. There is no repugnancy between the two matters of description; but, upon the contrary, they can be reconciled upon the theory in accord with the grantor's evident intention to convey the particular tracts mentioned, and also all other lands. If such was not his intention, this general clause would have served no purpose in the conveyance; and we know of no rule of law that would destroy the effect of this clause, and thus defeat the purpose of the grantor, because he has seen fit to give a more definite and particular description to other parcels of land mentioned in the instruments.
The court below, in submitting the issue of homestead to the jury, seems to have been governed by the rule announced by the court of civil appeals of the Fourth district on the last appeal of this case, which will be found reported in 57 S. W. 70, to the effect that the homestead right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v. Greer
...when both deal with estates of the same character. Importantly, the Smith decision discusses and approves of the holding in Lauchheimer v. Saunders.31 In Saunders, a deed of trust described "certain parcels and tracts of land" and also had a general clause that said "it was the intention of......
-
J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v. Greer, No. 02-0455 (TX 12/31/2004)
...ambiguous when both deal with estates of the same character. Importantly, the Smith decision discusses and approves of the holding in Laucheimer v. Saunders.31 In Saunders, a deed of trust described "certain parcels and tracts of land" and also had a general clause that said "it was the int......
-
Smith v. Allison
...the particular tracts described and mentioned in the deed. The Allisons and others rely upon the case of Laucheimer & Son v. Saunders, 27 Tex.Civ.App. 484, 65 S.W. 500, 501. In that case the deed of trust and deed described certain parcels of land conveyed, and also contained a general clau......
-
Burns v. Goodrich
...Accord, Arrowwood v. Blount, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W. 616 (1927), affirmed 121 Tex. 52, 41 S.W.2d 412 (1931); Lauchheimer v. Saunders, 27 Tex.Civ.App. 484, 65 S.W. 500, 501 (1901, no writ). Sometimes they limit and restrict. Whatever the category, as Judge Smedley stated in Sun Oil Co. v. Bur......
-
CHAPTER 4 FINDING, ACCESSING, RUNNING, AND EXAMINING THE LOCAL RECORDS AND PREPARING THE CHAIN OF TITLE
...Sanderson, 109 [Page 4-57] S.W.2d 744 (Tex. 1937); J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v Greer, 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005); and Lauchheimer v. Saunders, 65 S.W. 500 (Tex. Civ. App. 1901, no writ). 2. Judgment Liens If a court-certified "abstract of judgment" is properly prepared, recorded, and indexed, a ......