Pouncey v. May

• Decision Date: 18 March 1890
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: POUNCEY <I>v.</I> MAY <I>et al.</I>

13 S.W. 383

POUNCEY

v. MAY et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 18, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Gonzales county.

Harwood & Harwood, for appellant. W. S. Fly, for appellees.

HENRY, J.

This suit was brought by appellees to try title, and for partition. It was tried by the court without a jury. Plaintiffs were the children and heirs of M. Putman and his wife, Rebecca Putman. The wife and mother died in the year 1846. The land in controversy was purchased and paid for in the year 1845, and a deed was then made for it to M. Putman, but that deed was lost without being recorded. The land was paid for with community property, and in equity belonged to the community estate of M. Putman and his wife, Rebecca. After the death of his wife, Putman procured a second deed for the land from his vendor, which had the form of an original deed, and contained no reference to any other deed or transaction. The deed was in his own name, and contained no reference to his widow or children. It recited that the consideration was paid by him. In the year 1868, M. Putman conveyed part of the land to appellant, who subsequently purchased the remainder of the tract at an execution sale made under a judgment against said M. Putman. The evidence shows that at the date of his purchase the defendant had had some previous acquaintance with M. Putman, and knew that plaintiffs were his daughters. He had not then lived in the neighborhood of the land, and did not know anything about the history of the family of said Putman. He paid to M. Putman the amount named in his deed, which was the full market value of the land, and he had no notice that the land was purchased during the life-time of Rebecca Putman. He did not know that there was such a person as Rebecca Putman until long after his purchase of the land. When he purchased, he did not know that the land was claimed adversely to his vendor by plaintiffs, or by anybody else. The court found that all of the plaintiffs except one were barred by the statute of limitations, and that defendant "knew, or might have known, by the use of ordinary care and diligence, that the property was community." Judgment was rendered in favor of one of the plaintiffs for the recovery of an interest in the land, to reverse which the defendant prosecutes this appeal. Appellant assigns as error the failure of the court to find, as a fact established by the evidence, that the defendant was an innocent purchaser for value of the land in...