Mansel v. Castles
| Decision Date | 05 March 1900 |
| Citation | 55 S.W. 559 |
| Parties | MANSEL et al. v. CASTLES. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by T. F. Castles against George W. Mansel and others. An order vacating the judgment on motion of plaintiff, and entering a corrected judgment in lieu thereof, was reversed by the court of civil appeals (54 S. W. 299), and an amended judgment entered, and defendants bring error. Reversed.
Sam R. Henderson and B. R. Webb, for plaintiffs in error. Doremus & Butler, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error brought this suit against the plaintiffs in error to recover upon two promissory notes executed by the latter, and to foreclose a lien upon two tracts of land. One of the tracts was fully described in an exhibit to the petition. The description of the other was as follows: "A part of the J. D. Allcorn league, in Brazos county, Texas, and described as follows: Beginning at the south corner of the J. W. Beckham 160-acre tract, in said league; thence south, 45 W., 906 varas, with S. E. boundary line of said league, to a stake and mound in prairie; thence north, 45 W., with the first division line of said league, 555 varas, to J. J. Sample's E. corner; thence S., 45 E., 550 varas, to the place of beginning,—containing 87¾ acres of land, more or less." There was a judgment by default, and a decree of foreclosure, in which the two tracts of land were described as in the petition. After the adjournment of the term at which the judgment was rendered, the plaintiff filed a motion alleging the invalidity of the foreclosure as to one of the tracts of land by reason of an insufficient description, and praying that the judgment be set aside, and the cause reinstated. The motion having been granted, the plaintiff filed an amended petition, correcting the mistake in the field notes of the larger tract, and obtained a decree of foreclosure upon the petition as amended. The defendants appealed, but the court of civil appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the proceeding was good, as one to amend the decree. They have now brought the case to this court.
We are of opinion the judgment cannot be sustained, either upon the ground upon which the district court proceeded, or upon that on which the court of civil appeals rested its affirmance. That the description of the tract of 87¾ acres, as given in the original petition and decree of foreclosure, would be good, if found in a deed, can hardly be deemed an open...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyman v. Harris
...for in the prior judgment, and that the figures "75" are to be reversed. As to the degree of probability required see Mansel v. Castles, 93 Tex. 414, 55 S.W. 559. This conclusion enables us to give full effect to "about" and to construe it as directing the course of the eastern line to the ......
-
Lott v. Dashiell
...in a deed and identify the particular tract intended to be conveyed. Coffey v. Hendricks, 66 Tex. 676, 2 S. W. 47; Mansel v. Castles, 93 Tex. 414, 55 S. W. 559; Poitevent v. Scarborough, 103 Tex. 111, 124 S. W. I am utterly unable to agree with my associates as to the effect which should be......
-
Easterling v. Simmons
...& Co. v. King, 103 Tex. 620, 623, 626, 133 S. W. 241; Poitevent v. Scarborough, 103 Tex. 111, 113, 114, 124 S. W. 87; Mansel v. Castles, 93 Tex. 414, 415, 416, 55 S. W. 559. The sole purpose of a description of land as contained in a deed of conveyance is to identify the subject-matter of t......
-
Gates v. Asher
...A reasonable certainty is all that the law requires. Conviction beyond all peradventure of doubt is unnecessary. Mansel v. Castles, 93 Tex. 414, 55 S.W. 559, 560. In that case the court supplied by construction an entire call missing from the deed and held in part as follows: 'While, theref......