Martin v. Bryson
| Decision Date | 20 December 1902 |
| Citation | 71 S.W. 615 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. BRYSON.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Nolan county; H. C. Hord, Special Judge.
Action by J. W. Martin against J. M. Bryson. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Claud McCauley and Legett & Kirby, for appellant. Beall & Beall, for appellee.
This is an action of trespass to try title brought by appellant, Martin, against the appellee, Bryson, to recover title and possession of section 282, Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company school land, lying in Nolan county. The appellee pleaded "Not guilty," and, in effect, that appellant's claim of title was based on certain execution sales, which were void for the reason that the land, being unpatented school land, was not subject to execution, and by reason of certain alleged irregularities in the sale made by the sheriff, whereby the land sold for a grossly inadequate price. The answer contained a plea in reconvention, also, to remove clouds from appellee's title caused by the sheriff's deeds; and a tender of $125 and interest was made (being the amount paid for the land by appellant at sheriff's sales), but the plaintiffs in execution were not made parties to the plea. The case was tried by a jury, who, upon a peremptory charge from the court to find for defendant, brought in a verdict accordingly, and from the judgment rendered thereon this appeal was taken.
The facts are substantially as follows: Bryson in 1892 settled upon, and ever since has occupied as a home, 80 acres of section 38, Texas & Pacific Railroad Company school land, and received a quitclaim deed therefor from B. J. Rhodes in April, 1896. The record fails to disclose what interest Rhodes had, to quitclaim. In November, 1897, appellee applied to the commissioner to purchase section 282 as additional grazing land, and on the 24th day of December, 1897, it was awarded and sold to him. On September 28, 1896, Sasse & Parnell, of Gatesville, Tex., recovered a judgment in a justice court of Coryell county against the appellee, Bryson, for the sum of $82.99, and a pluries execution was regularly issued thereon to the sheriff of Nolan county, and the land was duly levied upon and sold thereunder by the said sheriff on the 3d day of July, 1900, according to law, when the appellant, Martin, became the purchaser at the price of $100, and thereupon the said sheriff executed and delivered to him a deed for the section of land in controversy. The same land had previously been sold under execution issued upon same judgment on 4th day of April, 1899. The judgment, execution thereon, sale, and sheriff's deed were all regular and valid, but the land sold for an inadequate price. The appellee at the date of the levy and sale had occupied his 80-acre home tract on section 38 for more than three years, and, upon filing proofs thereof with the commissioner of the general land office, was entitled to pay all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sox v. Miracle
... ... & Eng. Enc. Law, 107; Bissell v. Heyward, 96 U.S ... 580, 24 L.Ed. 678; Jennison v. Leonard, 21 Wall ... 302, 22 L.Ed. 539; Martin v. Bryson, 31 Tex. Civ ... App. 98, 71 S.W. 615; Allen v. Cadwell, 55 Mich. 8, ... 20 N.W. 692; Kercheval v. Wood, 3 Mich. 509; How ... ...
-
Sox v. Miracle
...and all rights thereto, and interests therein.” How. Ann. Stat. Mich. (2d Ed.) § 2, par. 9. All that the case of Martin v. Bryson, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 98, 71 S. W. 615, held was that the interest of a vendee in a land contract was a vendible interest which could be levied upon. It did not con......
-
Logue v. Atkeson
...had been made and accepted by the General Land Office. Such lands are the subject of sale, of seizure upon execution (Martin v. Bryson, 71 S. W. 615, 6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 458), and, we think, of The court having found that the deed of trust contained the usual covenants of warranty, which we con......
-
De Shazo v. Eubank
...or any one else; the three years' occupancy being complete, and no default made in the payments to the state. In Martin v. Bryson, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 98, 71 S. W. 615, the court held that land additional to the home tract was subject to sale under execution where the occupancy of the home se......