Oberthier v. Stroud
| Decision Date | 01 January 1870 |
| Parties | B. C. OBERTHIER AND OTHERS v. MARK STROUD AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
1. Land was purchased by W. with money belonging to his father and sister, but the deed, by mistake of the draftsman, was taken in his name instead of theirs, as was intended. Held, that W. was the trustee of an implied trust, and held the land for the use of his father and sister.
2. The land so conveyed to W. was levied on and sold under execution as his property, but notice was given to all bidders at the sale that he had no interest in it. Held, that the rule caveat emptor applies, and the purchaser bought at his peril.
3. The lien of a judgment upon land is no better than the title of the judgment debtor, and a purchaser at an execution sale takes the land subject to all equities available against the judgment debtor himself. Hence, it seems, that when the defendant in execution held the legal title under a resulting trust for others, with whose money he had paid for the land, the purchaser at execution sale could acquire no beneficial interest, even though he was in no way chargeable with notice of the trust, and the title as recorded stood in the name of the defendant in execution. (In this case the sheriff's deed was to two persons jointly, one of whom was one of the plaintiffs in execution, and was present at the sale when notice was given that the defendant in execution had no interest in the land.)
4. A resulting trust, it seems, is protected against the operation of the registration laws.
5. Plaintiffs in trespass to try title claimed as purchasers at an execution sale of the land as the property of W., in whose name the title stood. Defendants claimed under W.'s father and sister, and offered W. as a witness to prove that the title was conveyed to him by mistake, and that the land was paid for with money belonging to his father and sister. Plaintiffs objected that W. was interested by having made to one of the defendants a bond for title to the land; and the court below sustained the objection and excluded the witness. Held, that the ruling was erroneous; that the witness was called to testify against, and not in favor of his interest, and he was therefore competent.
APPEAL from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. J B. Williamson.
The leading facts of this case are stated in the opinion. Mark Stroud and Wiley Harris were plaintiffs below, and the judgment was in their favor. They claimed under a sheriff's deed to themselves, based upon an execution sale of the land under a levy made upon it as the property of A. C. Whatley. The sale was made under executions emanating from two judgments, one of which was in favor of T. J. Trammell and Mark Stroud. It inferentially appears that the land was bid off by Stroud; and Samuel Wasson, a witness for the defendants, testified that when the land was being sold by the sheriff, he, the witness, told the persons present, and Stroud among them, that A. C. Whatley had no interest in the land, and gave them his reasons for so stating.
The defendants were the heirs and a devisee of A. J. Whatley, and their tenants. The defendants offered A. C. Whatley to prove that the title was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Darr
...Parker v. Coop, 60 Tex. 111; McKamey et al. v. Thorp et al., 61 Tex. 648; Blankenship v. Douglas, 26 Tex. 227, 82 Am. Dec. 608; Oberthier v. Stroud, 33 Tex. 522; Senter & Co. v. Lambeth, 59 Tex. 259; Henderson v. Rushing, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 485, 105 S. W. 840; First State Bank of Amarillo v.......
-
Sinsheimer v. Kahn
...and clearly decided in several opinions of our supreme court. Parker v. Coop, 60 Tex. 114; Grace v. Wade, 45 Tex. 525; Oberthier v. Stroud, 33 Tex. 522; Blankenship v. Douglas, 26 Tex. 227. The subject is thoroughly discussed by Judge Stayton in Parker v. Coop, and, following the case of Bl......
-
Harper v. Over, 1625.
...of the trial court. In an attempt to sustain such contention, appellants cite 35 C.J. 75, 76; 26 Tex. Jur. 545, 546; Oberthier et al. v. Stroud, 33 Tex. 522; 66 C.J. 1332, 1333; 29 Tex. Jur. 957; 19 R.C.L. 622, 623. In reply, appellee says: "* * * the rule of caveat emptor, as applied to a ......
-
Dennis v. Dennis
...to the appellants and on this issue the jury found, 'It was not her intention to give said property.' Macias v. Macias, supra; Oberthier v. Stroud, 33 Tex. 522; Shepherd v. White, As the controlling issue in the cause was appellee's ownership of the lots in the Whitehead Addition, the court......