Moore v. Rogers.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1907
• Citation: 99 S.W. 1023
• Parties: MOORE et al. v. ROGERS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

99 S.W. 1023

MOORE et al. v. ROGERS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 20, 1907.

Error from Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.

Action by J. A. Rogers against Worth Moore and others. A judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, which was reversed on appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals in so far as it taxed costs against plaintiff, from which defendants brought error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and judgment of the district court affirmed.

Ray Hunter, for plaintiffs in error. Jas. C. Scott, for defendant in error.

BROWN, J.

J. A. Rogers begun this action in the district court of Tarrant county, the Forty-Eighth district, by motion to set aside a sale of lot 13, block 24, Jennings South addition to the city of Ft. Worth, made by virtue of an order of sale issued out of the district court on a judgment entered on the 15th day of October, 1904, in favor of the state of Texas against J. A. Rogers, for the sum of $25.62 and costs of suit, and foreclosing a tax lien upon the lot before described. The order of sale was issued on the 7th day of November, 1904, and the lot was advertised for sale as the property of J. A. Bowers and was regularly sold on the 6th day of December, 1904, purchased by and deeded to Worth Moore by the sheriff upon a bid of $40.77 which was paid to the sheriff. The motion was based upon the irregularity of advertising the property in the name of J. A. Bowers instead of J. A. Rogers, and also it was charged that the sheriff did not give written notice to Rogers, the owner of the property. Rogers tendered into court the amount of the said judgment and interest, with cost of that suit, and prayed that the sale and deed made in pursuance thereof be set aside. The defendants Worth Moore and A. P. Luckett answered by a number of exceptions, and by general denial, and specially claimed that the plaintiff had been guilty of laches, resisting the motion and praying that it be dismissed. The case was submitted to the judge without a jury, who gave judgment in favor of Rogers that the sale and deed be set aside, and in favor of Moore and Luckett that they recover of Rogers the amount of their bid, $40.77, foreclosing lien on the lot, giving Rogers 60 days in which to pay the amount of the bid and 6 per cent. interest from the date of the judgment, and, in case of his failure, ordering the clerk to issue an order of sale to the sheriff to sell the land in satisfaction of the judgment. Rogers appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals which reversed the judgment so far as it taxed the costs of the district court against Rogers and also as to the amount of $1 of the cost charged by the sheriff upon the sale of the property and affirmed the judgment in all other...