Luse v. Rea, (No. 1389.)

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtBoyce
Citation207 S.W. 942
PartiesLUSE et al. v. REA et al.
Decision Date04 December 1918
Docket Number(No. 1389.)
207 S.W. 942
LUSE et al.
v.
REA et al.
(No. 1389.)
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
December 4, 1918.
Rehearing Denied January 8, 1919.

Page 943

Appeal from District Court, Deaf Smith County; Reese Tatum, Judge.

Action by Mrs. P. L. Luse and husband against Mrs. Mary L. Waller Rea and husband, in which defendants bring cross-action in which A. F. Luse is joined. From judgment for defendants on cross-action, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

W. H. Russell, of Hereford, for appellants.

Kimbrough, Underwood & Jackson, of Amarillo, and Carl Gilliland, of Hereford, for appellees.

BOYCE, J.


This suit was instituted by Mrs. P. L. Luse, joined by her husband, R. G. Luse, against Mrs. Mary L. Waller Rea, and her husband, B. M. Rea, for recovery on breach of warranty of covenants against incumbrances contained in a conveyance of certain two sections of land conveyed by Mrs. Rea and her husband to Mrs. Luse. The questions on this appeal arise on the trial of the cross-action filed in said suit by the said Reas against the said P. L. and R. G. Luse, and also A. F. Luse, who was made party to the suit, so that it will not be necessary to notice further the issues raised by the pleading and the evidence as to the action on the breach of warranty. In this cross-action Mrs. Rea alleged that she, being the owner of two sections of land in Deaf Smith county, Tex., on which there was an incumbrance, entered into a contract with A. F. Luse to trade her equity in this land to A. F. Luse, in consideration of $800 cash, 160 acres of land in El Paso county, and $14,000 in notes, executed by O. H. Bennett, and secured by a deed of trust on five and one-half sections of land in Culberson and El Paso counties; that the contract was consummated in accordance with the preliminary agreement just stated; that Mrs. Rea was induced to enter into this contract by representations made to her by the said A. F. Luse, who was acting for Mrs. P. L. Luse and her husband, to the effect that the five and one-half sections of land upon which he was to procure a deed of trust from the said Bennett to secure the payment of said notes for $14,000 were worth about $28,000, for which amount he had sold the same to the said Bennett, the $14,000 in notes representing the balance of the purchase price he was receiving for said land; that said notes were a vendor's lien on said land, and he also agreed to have them secured by deed of trust executed by Bennett. It is further alleged that as a matter of fact such land at the time was practically worthless; that O. F. Bennett was insolvent, and the deed of trust, which purported to have been executed by O. H. Bennett to secure the payment of said notes executed by him and delivered to Mrs. Rea with such notes, was a forgery; that by such means the said Mrs. Rea was cheated out of her equity in the Deaf Smith county land, which was alleged to be of the value of $25,000, for which amount she prayed judgment.

The evidence shows that the trade was closed in pursuance to the preliminary contract referred to in the cross-action. Such contract provided that the Deaf Smith county land was to be conveyed by Mrs. Luse for the consideration referred to, including "$14,000 worth of deed of trust notes, executed by O. H. Bennett, and secured by lien on five and one-half sections of land located in Culberson county, Texas, and El Paso county, Texas," etc. The notes so delivered by Luse in consummation of the contract were executed by Bennett and payable to Mrs Rea, and each note contained this recital: "This note is secured by a deed of trust lien on Secs. * * *;" following this statement with a specific description of the land in Culberson and El Paso counties. A deed of trust on said land, purporting to have been executed and acknowledged by the said Bennett and securing the payment of these notes, was also delivered by Luse to Mrs. Rea with the notes. The jury found, in response to special issues submitted to them, that A. F. Luse represented to Mrs. Rea that Bennett was financially responsible for the payment of said notes; that as a matter of fact Bennett was insolvent; that Mrs. Rea relied on these representations, and was thus induced to make the contract, and that the deed of trust purporting to have been executed by Bennett was a forgery. No evidence was offered as to the value of the 160 acres of land in El Paso county, conveyed to Mrs. Rea, nor as to the value of the five and one-half sections of land described in the Bennett notes and deed of trust. It was shown that Mrs. Rea had traded the said notes for $14,000 for property of various kinds, and upon such sale of said notes had indorsed them to the purchaser thereof. Upon this evidence and the findings of the jury, as above stated, the court entered judgment on the cross-action in favor of Mrs. Rea for the "face value of the notes delivered to defendants by A. F. Luse, in part payment for defendant's Deaf Smith county land, the sum of $14,000 being the value of said notes had they been secured by valid deed of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19139.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 23, 1938
    ...Payne, 250 S.W. 553; Petrie v. Reynolds, 219 S.W. 934; Elliott v. Delaney, 217 Mo. 14; Weissenfels v. Cable, 208 Mo. 515; Algeo v. Algeo, 207 S.W. 942; Advance Thrasher Co. v. Speak, 167 Mo. App. 440; Central Mfg. Co. v. Montgomery, 144 Mo. App. 494; Rogers v. Shawnee Fire Ins. Co., 132 Mo.......
  • Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19236.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 23, 1938
    ...Payne, 250 S.W. 553: Petrie v. Reynolds, 219 S.W. 934; Elliott v. Dulaney, 217 Mo. 14; Weissenfels v. Cable, 208 Mo. 515; Algeo v. Algeo, 207 S.W. 942; Advance Thrasher Co. v. Speak, 167 Mo. App. 440; Central Mfg. Co. v. Montgomery, 144 Mo. App. 494; Rogers v. Shawnee Fire Ins. Co., 132 Mo.......
  • Hill v. Daugherty, 6871
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 18, 1941
    ...29 S.W. 1124; Jones on Mortgages, 4th ed. Sec. 277, p. 190; Keller vs. Kirby, 79 S.W. 82; Hannah vs. Vensel, 19 Idaho 796; Luse vs. Rea, 207 S.W. 942; Pollock vs. Millsap, 122 So. 15.) Verner R. Clements, for Respondents. To justify a trial court in determining that a deed which purposes to......
  • RONFIN v. Nauru, No. 98-20331
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 6, 1999
    ...to complete a condition, which was required by the agreement, to argue that the equitable lien has not yet been created. See Luse v. Rea, 207 S.W. 942, 944 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Amarillo 1918), aff'd 231 S.W. 310 (Tex. 1921) ("The maker of a note ought not be heard to say that he has not done ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19139.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 23, 1938
    ...Payne, 250 S.W. 553; Petrie v. Reynolds, 219 S.W. 934; Elliott v. Delaney, 217 Mo. 14; Weissenfels v. Cable, 208 Mo. 515; Algeo v. Algeo, 207 S.W. 942; Advance Thrasher Co. v. Speak, 167 Mo. App. 440; Central Mfg. Co. v. Montgomery, 144 Mo. App. 494; Rogers v. Shawnee Fire Ins. Co., 132 Mo.......
  • Boillot v. Income Guar. Co., No. 19236.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 23, 1938
    ...Payne, 250 S.W. 553: Petrie v. Reynolds, 219 S.W. 934; Elliott v. Dulaney, 217 Mo. 14; Weissenfels v. Cable, 208 Mo. 515; Algeo v. Algeo, 207 S.W. 942; Advance Thrasher Co. v. Speak, 167 Mo. App. 440; Central Mfg. Co. v. Montgomery, 144 Mo. App. 494; Rogers v. Shawnee Fire Ins. Co., 132 Mo.......
  • Hill v. Daugherty, 6871
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 18, 1941
    ...29 S.W. 1124; Jones on Mortgages, 4th ed. Sec. 277, p. 190; Keller vs. Kirby, 79 S.W. 82; Hannah vs. Vensel, 19 Idaho 796; Luse vs. Rea, 207 S.W. 942; Pollock vs. Millsap, 122 So. 15.) Verner R. Clements, for Respondents. To justify a trial court in determining that a deed which purposes to......
  • RONFIN v. Nauru, No. 98-20331
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 6, 1999
    ...to complete a condition, which was required by the agreement, to argue that the equitable lien has not yet been created. See Luse v. Rea, 207 S.W. 942, 944 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Amarillo 1918), aff'd 231 S.W. 310 (Tex. 1921) ("The maker of a note ought not be heard to say that he has not done ......
  • 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