McCown v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 20 Tex. 372 |
| Parties | JOSHUA W. MCCOWN v. DANIEL G. WHEELER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
It is no objection to the recovery of possession of a deed belonging to plaintiff, and unlawfully detained by the defendant, that such deed is executed with a blank for the name of the grantee.
Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor.
Suit by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, alleging that on the 17th of June, 1853, plaintiff employed defendant to sell a certain tract of land, which plaintiff then owned, and placed in his possession a deed for said land from Lewis Hetzler, the original grantee; “that the name of the grantee had been left blank in said deed, with instructions to fill up the same, when sold, with the purchaser's name; that A. S. Ruthven purchased the same of Lewis Hetzler, and took the deed in blank, for convenience in making a transfer of the same, and sold the said land to your petitioner, and delivered the said deed to him, with like instructions to fill up the same with his name or any other he might sell to;” that defendant was solvent when so employed, but had since become insolvent; that defendant had not sold said land, and plaintiff feared, if he should sell said land, he, plaintiff, would not be able to obtain the purchase money from him; that plaintiff had demanded said deed from defendant, and he refused to return it. Prayer for injunction, and for a return of the deed.
General demurrer and general denial. Demurrer overruled. Judgment for plaintiff, March 13th, 1857, that he recover the said deed, and order that defendant bring said deed into court on or before the 25th of said month, and the preliminary injunction perpetuated.
Sayles, for plaintiff in error. The petition shows “no cause of action.” The alleged conveyance from Hetzler was a nullity, and the deed so termed, a worthless piece of paper, not alleged to be of any value, and for the recovery of which no action would lie. Duncan v. Hodges, 4 McCord, 239;4 Binn. 1; Bac. Abr. title FEOFFMENT, vol. iv, 212; 2 Dev. & B. 381.
J. D. & D. C. Giddings, for defendant in error. It is no defense to the action, for defendant to say the deed was in blank and void. It was not his paper. A deed delivered to another, with instructions to sell and fill up the grantee's name, when such sale and delivery was made, would be valid.
It is objected to the judgment, that the plaintiff has shown no cause of action, because it appears by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. Green
...are untenable, and that the recitals in the deed were in themselves sufficient to meet the requirements of our statute of frauds. McCown v. Wheeler, 20 Tex. 372; Johnson v. Elmen, 94 Tex. 168, 173, 59 S. W. 253, 52 L. R. A. 162, 86 Am. St. Rep. 845; House v. Holland et al., 42 Tex. Civ. App......
-
Glasscock v. Farmers Royalty Holding Co.
...held that parol authority to fill blanks which have been left in an instrument required by law to be in writing is sufficient. McCown v. Wheeler, 20 Tex. 372; Ragsdale v. Robinson, 48 Tex. 379; Threadgill v. Butler, 60 Tex. 599. But there is a distinction between the cases above referred to......
-
Farmers Royalty Holding Co. v. Jeffus, 2927.
...v. Butler, 60 Tex. 599; Schleicher v. Runge (Tex.Civ.App.) 37 S. W. 982; Henke v. Stacy, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 272, 61 S.W. 509; McCown v. Wheeler, 20 Tex. 372, 373; Tarrant County v. McLemore (Tex.Sup.) 8 S.W. 94; Gray v. Fennimore (Tex.Com.App.) 215 S.W. 956. Of the cases cited, in the main the......
-
Blankenship v. Mott, 3088.
...v. Butler, 60 Tex. 599; Schleicher v. Runge (Tex.Civ.App.) 37 S.W. 982; Henke v. Stacy, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 272, 61 S.W. 509; McCown v. Wheeler, 20 Tex. 372, 373; Tarrant County v. McLemore (Tex.Sup.) 8 S.W. 94; Gray v. Fenimore (Tex.Com. App.) 215 S.W. 956. Of the cases cited, in the main they......