Moore v. Blagge
| Decision Date | 26 June 1897 |
| Citation | 41 S.W. 465 |
| Parties | MOORE et al. v. BLAGGE et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In this motion for rehearing, defendants in error do not, as we understand, controvert the correctness of the conclusions reached by us, in the opinion that the suit in Galveston was one for partition, and that in such proceeding the court had power to order a sale for partition, but they contend that the land in controversy in this cause was not included in that transaction, and that the court of civil appeals found as a fact that there was no parol partition, and hence this court, having no jurisdiction to find such a fact, is bound by their action, and must affirm this judgment, unless the description in the judicial proceedings be sufficient to pass the title. We are of opinion that this position is not well taken. The finding of fact and the undisputed evidence show: That "it was admitted in open court by counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants that Jonas Butler did own an undivided one-fifth interest in the T. J. Chambers 2-league grant in McLennan county, Texas; and that in 1859, in a partition proceeding between himself and the co-owners of said land, said one-fifth interest in said T. J. Chambers grant, being the 640 acres in controversy, was set apart to him as his undivided interest therein, and is the same land in controversy herein." That the same land was conveyed by the sheriff's deed to McLemore. That in the petition for partition it is described: That in the sheriff's return it is described: "1/5 of two leagues, 640 acres, McLennan county, T. C. Chambers headright, to M. C. McLemore." That McLemore bought for George J. Butler, one of plaintiffs in the petition, in pursuance of the agreement and purpose shown by the proceedings therein; and that none of the parties ever questioned this setting aside of this land to George J. Butler until this suit was filed. The only defect in the description of the very 640 acres in controversy herein, in said partition proceedings, is that it is therein referred to by the description under which Jonas Butler, the ancestor, held it prior to the partition in 1859. Whatever may be said of the sufficiency of this mode of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Gleason
... ... 30 Cyc ... 201; Waugh v. Blumenthal, 28 Mo. 462; Geer v ... Geer, 14 S.E. 679; Moor v. Polagge, 41 S.W ... 465; Blagge v. Shaw, 41 S.W. 756 ... The ... fact that the proceeding was ex parte cannot be ... objectionable ... Section ... 3521, ... ...
-
Frazier v. Hanlon Gasoline Co.
...equitable distribution of the estate among those entitled to the same. Our Supreme Court in Moore v. Blagge, 91 Tex. 151, 38 S. W. 979, 41 S. W. 465, has held that a trial court could disregard the allegations in a partition and adopt a course which, in partitioning the property, would be t......
-
Mitchell v. Thompson
...sale which was actually made, and under the very circumstances under which it was made. Moore v. Blagge et al., 91 Tex. 151, 38 S. W. 979, 41 S. W. 465, and cases cited. The validity of the 1908 judgment cannot be made to turn on whether or not the court correctly authorized Thompson to pur......
-
Bonner v. Pearson
...of the courts of common law to furnish a plain, complete, and adequate remedy. Moore v. Blagge, 91 Tex. 151, 38 S. W. 979, 983, 41 S. W. 465. It has been expressly held in this state that our district courts, in the exercise of their equitable powers, may re-examine a case upon its merits w......