Lawson v. Armstrong

Decision Date12 January 1921
Docket Number(No. 6272.)
Citation227 S.W. 687
PartiesLAWSON et al. v. ARMSTRONG.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; H. M. Richey, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Emily E. Armstrong, for herself and as next friend of her husband, L. G. Armstrong, against W. D. Lawson and others. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded in part, and reformed and affirmed in part on rehearing.

Sleeper, Boynton & Kendall, of Waco, for appellants.

Weatherby & Rogers, of Waco, for appellee

BRADY, J.

The following statement of the nature and result of the suit is taken from appellants' brief:

"This suit was instituted in the Seventy-Fourth judicial district court of McLennan county, Tex., by appellee Mrs. Emily E. Armstrong, for herself and as next friend for her husband, L. G. Armstrong, alleged to be a non compos mentis, against W. D. Lawson and J. T. Lawson, appellants, and Asa Warner, W. H. Dunson and wife, M. E. Dunson, and also W. R. Saunders, alleged to be a nonresident of the state, to cancel deeds to the land in controversy and for possession and rents.

"Plaintiff's claim for recovery is based on allegations to the effect that while plaintiff L. G. Armstrong was insane, having been so adjudged on the 24th day of March, 1911, he and his wife, said Emily E. Armstrong, were fraudulently persuaded and induced by defendant W. R. Saunders, who had been their legal advisor, to convey to him their homestead, the land in controversy, said Saunders representing that it was dangerous for said Emily E. Armstrong to live so far in the country on the farm with her insane husband, and if they would sell the home to him and let him handle the money which they were to get for same they could move to Waco and live in ease and comfort and educate their two little orphan grandchildren, and, believing and relying on said statements, she and her husband signed the deed and indorsed the notes recited therein and delivered the same to said Saunders; that the deed to Saunders is dated October 18, 1913, and duly acknowledged and recorded, and recites cash payment of $1,500, and one note for $2,000, three notes for $1,000 each, one note for $2,000, and one note for $1,700, payable, respectively, January 1, 1914, to January 1, 1919, inclusive, the whole consideration aggregating $10,200. It was alleged that the representations of Saunders were false, and after the notes were indorsed and delivered to him plaintiffs never received any money or thing of value from him.

"It was further alleged that on November 14, 1913, Saunders sold the farm to defendant Dunson for $13,332, by deed of said date duly recorded, of which $1,000 was paid in cash, and the grantee assumed the notes executed by Saunders to the Armstrongs, and in addition thereto gave to the said Saunders one note for $1,300 due January 1, 1919, and two notes for $1,166 each, due January 1, 1915 and 1916.

"That afterwards, on the 10th day of April, 1915, Dunson reconveyed the land to Saunders by deed duly recorded, the consideration recited being $10 and the assumption of said two notes for $1,166 each given by Dunson to Saunders and then held by the First State Bank & Trust Company of Waco, and the further consideration of the assumption of a note for $4,000 due January 1, 1919, held by Asa Warner and given in renewal and extension of three of the notes given by Saunders to Armstrong and wife for the land, and also the assumption of the note for $1,700 given by Saunders to the Armstrongs due January 1, 1919, and the further consideration of the cancellation of the note for $1,300 given by Dunson to Saunders for the land, due January 1, 1919.

"That afterwards on the 19th day of April, 1915, Saunders conveyed the land to defendants W. D. and J. T. Lawson for the inadequate consideration of $8,532, of which $2,000 was paid in cash and the assumption by the Lawsons of the two notes for $1,166 each given by Dunson to Saunders for the land and assigned by Saunders to the First State Bank & Trust Company of Waco, and for the further consideration of the assumption by the Lawsons of two notes for $1,000 each and one for $2,000 given by Saunders for the land and held by defendant Asa Warner.

"It was further alleged that the Lawsons knew of the insanity of plaintiff L. G. Armstrong at the time when he and his wife conveyed the land to Saunders, and that they colluded and conspired with Saunders in purchasing the land and knew that Saunders had swindled plaintiffs out of their homestead, and that they made to Saunders only a small cash payment, and that he executed the deed to the Lawsons for the grossly inadequate consideration of $68 an acre, which it was alleged was only about one-half of the true value of the land.

"Plaintiffs allege that the reasonable rental value of the land was $1,000 per annum, and they prayed for a cancellation of all of said deeds and the liens on said land to secure the payment of said notes, and for recovery of the land, rents, etc.

"No answer was filed by the defendant W. R. Saunders.

"Defendant Asa Warner filed a disclaimer, alleging that the notes held by him had been paid by W. T. Herrick, vendee of the Lawsons.

"Defendant Dunson answered, alleging that he was unable to pay the notes given and assumed by him for the land and was forced to reconvey the property to Saunders, and he disclaimed any interest therein.

"Defendants W. D. and J. T. Lawson answered by general demurrer, general denial, and further that the land described in plaintiffs' petition was the separate property of the plaintiff Emily E. Armstrong, and that if her said husband, L. G. Armstrong, was insane and without mental capacity to execute the deed to Saunders set out in plaintiffs' petition, then said deed was duly executed by the said Emily E. Armstrong, who held title to the property in her separate right and said deed to said Saunders passed a good and indefeasible title to the property.

"They further alleged that on the 5th day of May, 1913, proceedings were had in the county court of McLennan county, Tex., in the same cause in which the said L. G. Armstrong was adjudged insane on the 24th day of May, 1911, wherein, upon the issue duly tried and submitted to the jury, the jury found that the said L. G. Armstrong was sane and the former judgment adjudicating him a lunatic was set aside, and that at the time when the said Armstrong and his wife executed said deed to Saunders, on October 18, 1913, the said L. G. Armstrong was sane and capable of transacting the ordinary affairs of life, and that both he and his wife were bound by said deed. They denied that they colluded or conspired with said Saunders to swindle plaintiffs out of said land and knew nothing in regard to the facts alleged by plaintiffs to the effect that Saunders had failed to pay plaintiffs for the land, and that they had bought the same and paid full value therefor. They pleaded the statute of two years' limitation in bar of plaintiffs' right to recover rents, accruing more than two years before the filing of plaintiffs' amended petition on the 22d day of October, 1919, in which plaintiffs first set up a claim for rents.

"On the trial special issues were submitted to the jury, and, based on the findings of the jury, the court gave judgment for plaintiffs vesting them with title to the land in controversy and declaring null and void the deeds from plaintiffs to W. R. Saunders, and from Saunders to W. H. Dunson, and from W. H. Dunson and wife to W. R. Saunders, and from W. R. Saunders to the Lawsons, with liens, incumbrances, etc., created thereby, and removed cloud from plaintiffs' title, also vesting in plaintiffs right, title, and interest of Asa Warner by virtue of the vendor's lien note held by him. The court also rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs for rents against the said Saunders for $500 and against the Lawsons for $700.

"Judgment was also rendered against the Lawsons, Dunsons, and Saunders for costs.

"From this judgment W. D. Lawson and J. T. Lawson have appealed."

The findings of the jury affecting the questions on this appeal were in substance these: That at the time the deed from L. G. and Mrs. E. E. Armstrong to W. R. Saunders was executed L. G. Armstrong was insane, and that both W. D. Lawson and J. T. Lawson, at the time of the execution of such deed, had knowledge of his insane condition; that at the time of the execution of the deed Saunders intended to defraud the plaintiffs out of the proceeds of the land, and that both W. D. and J. T. Lawson had knowledge of the fraud practiced upon plaintiffs by Saunders; that the rental value of the Armstrong farm during the time subsequent to the deed from Saunders to the Lawsons was $1,500; and that the Armstrongs received from Saunders in the sale of the farm the sum of $800, which was allowed as a credit in the judgment upon such rental value. These findings of the jury are all supported by evidence.

Opinion.

The first question for decision is the claim of appellants that the verdict of the jury, in answer to special issue No. 1, is contrary to and not supported by the evidence for the reason that the evidence showed that L. G. Armstrong was sane when he executed the deed to Saunders, had the mental ability to transact the ordinary affairs of life, to understand the nature and effect of his deed, and to exercise his will in relation thereto. This issue was fairly presented by the trial court, with appropriate explanatory instructions, and was answered against appellants. It would not be profitable to detail the evidence on this question. It is sufficient to say that there is ample testimony, although conflicting, tending to establish Mr. Armstrong's insane condition during such period. The finding of the jury is conclusive upon this court, and therefore these assignments are overruled.

It is next urged that the evidence shows the land in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Service Parts Co. v. Bizzell
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 1938
    ...Miller v. Stine, Tex.Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d 397, 400; Downs v. Farmers' Grain & Imp. Co., Tex.Civ. App., 36 S.W.2d 292; Lawson v. Armstrong, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 687; Keys v. Tarrant County Bldg. & Loan, Tex.Civ. App., 286 S.W. 593; Fairbanks v. Fairbanks, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d Appellant d......

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