Ross v. Morrow

Decision Date07 June 1892
Citation19 S.W. 1090
PartiesROSS <I>et al.</I> v. MORROW <I>et al.</I>
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Robson & Rosenthal and Moore & Duncan, for plaintiffs in error. T. E. Hammond, for defendants in error.

HOBBY, P. J.

This is an action of trespass to try title to the land described in the petition. It was brought on the 16th of April, 1886, by Edward, Henry, Nathan, and Nancy Ross, the children and heirs of Anderson Ross, against the defendants, A. W. and J. T. Morrow. It was agreed that both parties derive title from Jesse Burnham as a common source, who occupied it in 1857. The land was the community property of Jesse Burnham and his wife, Nancy Burnham, who were married in 1837. Anderson Ross was the child of Nancy Burnham by a previous marriage with J. G. Ross. She died in February, 1863, leaving said Anderson Ross and five other children by her second marriage with Jesse Burnham her heirs. Anderson Ross died in December, 1864, leaving as his heirs the plaintiffs. Jesse Burnham died in 1883. Prior to his death, on January 11, 1864, he conveyed to his children, Emily, Sarah, Waddy, Gid, and Adelia Burnham, by the marriage with Nancy Burnham, the land in controversy. This conveyance was acknowledged and recorded in September, 1865. They took possession of and resided on the land until they sold it to the defendants for a valuable consideration in April, 1870. The defendants have been in possession and have paid the taxes thereon since. The court found that the defendants were purchasers in good faith, for value, and that they had no knowledge of the fact that the plaintiffs had any interest in the land until the institution of this suit. The court also found that Nat. Ross was born on the 17th day of April, 1860, and that he was 21 years old on the 16th day of April, 1881, and that the five-years limitation as to him expired on the 15th day of April, 1886, one day before the institution of this suit. Henry Ross, one of the plaintiffs, and Mrs. Josepha Ligon, one of the defendants, are admitted to be barred by limitation, and hence do not appeal from the judgment. Plaintiffs in error Edward and Nathan Ross and Mrs. Homuth bring the case up to review so much of the judge's conclusions of fact and law as holds that the defendants in error are purchasers in good faith, and holds that Nathan Ross is barred by the five-year statute of limitation. The errors assigned present only those two points.

The first assignment is that the court erred in rendering judgment against plaintiffs in error, and in favor of defendants in error, "because the facts undisputed show that the land sued for was the community property of Jesse and Nancy Burnham, deceased, at the date of the death of the said Nancy, who died intestate; that at the death of said Nancy she left surviving her six children, one of whom was Anderson Ross, the father of plaintiffs in error; that five of said children of Nancy had conveyed their interest in the land in controversy to defendants in error, but neither said Anderson Ross nor his heirs had ever transferred or parted with their interest; that the said Anderson Ross is dead, and the plaintiffs in error are his heirs, and as such were entitled to a one twentieth each of the land sued for." The finding of the court that the defendants were innocent purchasers without notice of the rights of the plaintiffs, and the further finding that the plaintiff Nat. Ross was barred by the statute of limitation of five years, are both made the basis of assignments, and present the questions decisive of the case. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs inherited the interest of their father, Anderson Ross, in the estate of his mother, Mrs. Nancy Burnham, and that at her death in February, 1863, he inherited one sixth of her community interest in the land in dispute. This being so, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover this interest, unless the defendants are shown to be innocent purchasers for value without notice of the fact that Anderson Ross was the heir of Nancy Burnham at the time of their purchase from the other five heirs of said Nancy and Jesse Burnham, or unless they have acquired title by limitation. The proof relating to the question whether or not the defendant A. W. Morrow was ignorant of the fact that Anderson Ross had any interest in the land is as follows: He testified that he "did not know that Nancy Burnham had any other children except Gid, Waddy, Sarah E., and Adelia Burnham and Mrs. Emily Hunter; that he did not know that Nancy Burnham was the mother of Anderson Ross; that he bought the entire tract in controversy in this suit; that Anderson Ross never lived with Jesse and Nancy Burnham; that he never saw him at their house, and that he had no knowledge of said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • People v. Woolfolk
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 27, 2014
    ...common law fixes the beginning of such period on the day preceding the twenty-first anniversary of birth....”); Ross v. Morrow, 85 Tex. 172, 175, 19 S.W. 1090 (1892) (“The rule adopted in computing the age of a person is, that the day of his birth is included” so that age advances the day b......
  • New York & T. Land Co. v. Hyland
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 1894
    ...the existence of other heirs, but that he had also made inquiry or exercised diligence to ascertain if other heirs existed. Ross v. Morrow, 85 Tex. 174, 19 S. W. 1090; Hill v. Moore, 85 Tex. 336, 19 S. W. 162; and other cases. Thus it is seen that, if the defense of innocent purchasee is to......
  • Shalabi v. City of Fontana
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 12, 2021
    ...a minor attained his or her majority because the minor "could have instituted his suit at any moment of that day." ( Ross v. Morrow (1892) 85 Tex. 172, 19 S.W. 1090, 1091 ; see also Pate v. Thompson (Tex.Ct.App. 1944) 179 S.W.2d 355, 356.)As defendants acknowledge, however, other states tha......
  • Nelson v. Sandkamp
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1948
    ...v. Wirt County Court, 63 W.Va. 230, 245, 59 S.E. 884, 981, 982; Vol. 11, Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., page 398. 2. Ross v. Morrow, 85 Tex. 172, 19 S.W. 1090, 16 L.R.A. 542; State v. Clarke, 3 Harr., Del., 557; United States v. Wright, 8 Cir., 197 F. 297, 116 C.C.A. 659; Erwin v. Benton, 120......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 3 WHEN TO GO BEYOND RECORD TITLE - THE DUTY TO INQUIRE
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Advanced Mineral Title Examination (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...is notice to the world). (2) Heirship. New York & T. Land Co. v. Hyland, 28 S.W. 206 (Tex. Civ. App. 1894, writ ref'd); Ross v. Morrow, 19 S.W. 1090 (Tex. 1892). See Standard 11.70. (3) The appointment of a receiver. First Southern Properties, Inc. v. Vallone, 533 S.W. 2d 339 (Tex. 1976) (t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT