Mathis v. Stockdick, 11716.
| Citation | 189 S.W.2d 106 |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 11716.,11716. |
| Parties | MATHIS et ux. v. STOCKDICK et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; W. W. Moore, Judge.
Trespass to try title action by J. J. Mathis and wife against E. C. Stockdick and others, wherein plaintiffs also sought reformation and enforcement of contract. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
H. E. Kahn and McFarlane & Dillard, all of Houston, for appellants.
Norman M. West, of Houston (Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, of Houston, of counsel), for appellees.
This suit was brought by appellants, J. J. Mathis and wife, in trespass to try title, to recover from appellees, E. C. Stockdick et al., 100 acres of land out of Section 43, Block 1, H. & T. C. R. R. Surveys in Harris County. By amended pleadings appellants also sought to reform and enforce a contract by the terms of which appellant, J. J. Mathis, was granted the option and privilege of repurchasing said 100 acres of land on or before January 1, 1936, under certain conditions, by extending the option period provided for therein for a period of ten years.
Appellants alleged in their amended petition that J. J. Mathis did not read said repurchase agreement before executing it and that he relied upon the representations made by E. C. Stockdick to the effect that appellants would have until December 31, 1945, within which to effect the repurchase of said land. Appellants alleged that the failure of J. J. Mathis to earlier discover the fraud alleged to have been perpetrated upon him was due to his confidence in the honesty and integrity of E. C. Stockdick.
Appellees answered by a general denial and by a plea of not guilty. By amended answer they excepted to the allegations in appellants' petition on the ground that it affirmatively appeared from the face of said pleading that the cause of action was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. They also pleaded the four-year statute of limitations in bar of appellants' cause of action.
All issues submitted to the jury were answered in favor of appellants, including issues that appellee, E. C. Stockdick, had, at the time of the execution of said repurchase agreement, represented to J. J. Mathis that appellants would have the right to repurchase said land at any time during the period extending through the year 1945; that J. J. Mathis believed said representations and was thereby induced to sign such agreement. The jury found appellees had not acquired title to said land under the three-year statute of limitations.
On motion of appellees, the trial court rendered judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of appellees, and that appellants take nothing by their suit.
It was stipulated by the parties that the title to the land in controversy had passed by a regular chain of mesne conveyances into O. L. Miller; that, by deed dated November 30, 1921, O. L. Miller and wife conveyed said land to appellant, J. J. Mathis, for a recited consideration of $3875, including the assumption by Mathis of notes aggregating $2665 then due the Federal Land Bank of Houston, and the execution by Mathis of a vendor's lien note of even date with said deed for the sum of $1200, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum; that, by instrument dated December 1, 1922, O. L. Miller assigned said $1200 note to A. Stockdick. This note, which was later renewed and extended, passed by will to appellees herein.
By warranty deed dated October 29, 1935, and filed for record on that date, J. J. Mathis and wife conveyed the land in controversy to appellees.
On October 29, 1935, or the day following, appellant, J. J. Mathis, and appellee, E. C. Stockdick, acting for himself and the other appellees herein, executed in duplicate the option or repurchase contract which is sought to be reformed by appellants. The instrument recited that J. J. Mathis had on that date conveyed to appellee, E. C. Stockdick, individually and as attorney in fact for the other appellees herein, the 100 acres of land in controversy, subject to the lien of the Federal Land Bank of Houston in the approximate sum of $2600, and in further consideration of the cancellation of said $1200 note, with accrued interest thereon. It recited that it was agreed by the parties that Stockdick would reconvey said land to Mathis on or before January 1, 1936, provided that Mathis would pay to Stockdick the principal and interest then due on said $1200 note and would reimburse Stockdick for all sums paid on said indebtedness and the necessary expenses incurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carminati v. Fenoglio, 15498
...refused n. r. e.; Texas Osage Cooperative Royalty Pool v. Colwell, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 93, writ refused n. r. e.; Mathis v. Stockdick, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 106, writ Actions to reform a deed procured by fraud are governed by Article 5529, and it seems to be settled that such action......
-
Davis v. Andrews
...that appellants' action for reformation is barred by the four year statute of limitations, Art. 5529, V.A.C.S. (1925). Mathis v. Stockdick, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 106 writ ref.; Kahanek v. Kahanek, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 174; Hogan v. Price, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 745; Holt v. Hedberg......
-
Southern Coast Corp. v. Sinclair Refining Co.
...Gardner, Tex.Com.App., 286 S.W. 173; Gulf Production Co. et al. v. Palmer et ux., Tex. Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1017, 1021; Mathis v. Stockdick, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 106. (4) Even if the oral contract was made so far as the period after December 31, 1945, is concerned, such oral contract unde......
-
Barnett v. Sullivan
...writ refused n.r.e.; Texas Osage Cooperative Royalty Pool v. Colwell, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 93, writ refused n.r.e.; Mathis v. Stockdick, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 106, writ The deed to plaintiffs from Barnett Begins the description of the property conveyed as, 'An undivided one-half (1/2......