Ross v. Sechrist
Decision Date | 10 December 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 6821.) |
Citation | 275 S.W. 287 |
Parties | ROSS v. SECHRIST et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Actions by W. F. Anderson in trespass to try title against J. L. Sechrist and wife, and by J. F. Sechrist for breach of warranty of title against A. R. Ross, consolidated. From that part of the judgment in favor of plaintiff last named, defendant last named brings error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Chandler & Pannill, of Stephenville, for plaintiff in error.
R. L. Thompson, of Stephenville, for defendant in error Anderson.
On the ___ day of November, 1922, W. F. Anderson filed suit against J. L. Sechrist and his wife, Mattie Sechrist, in trespass to try title for about 12½ acres of land out of the J. Tarbox survey in Erath county, Tex. By a second count he sued to set aside a certain deed executed by A. R. Ross to J. L. Sechrist, conveying said 12½ acres of land, alleging that he purchased the land at a sheriff's sale under a foreclosure proceeding of certain vendor's lien notes against the land, and that the purported conveyance from Ross to Sechrist passed no interest in the land, and the deed constituted a cloud upon his (Anderson's) title to the land. Ross was not made a party to this suit by citation.
After the institution of the above suit by Anderson against Sechrist and his wife, Sechrist filed a separate suit in the same court against A. R. Ross, alleging that Ross conveyed him 18½ acres of land out of the J. Tarbox survey, being the same land in controversy in the Anderson suit against him, and for which he paid Ross, in exchange of property, $2,000, Ross warranting the title thereto; that Ross breached his warranty, in that there were outstanding at the time against the land so conveyed certain notes aggregating $1,000, and secured by certain deeds of trust; that the land was sold by a sheriff's deed to W. H. Anderson, in a suit to foreclose the deeds of trust; and that the prayer was for damages in the sum of $2,000.
On February 8, 1923, these two causes were consolidated by order of the court, and on the same day the following judgment was entered in the case as consolidated:
From the judgment rendered against him for damages, A. R. Ross has applied to this court for a writ of error. Defendants in error Sechrist and Anderson move the court to dismiss the writ of error because plaintiff in error did not, in the petition for writ of error, nor in the writ of error bond filed herein, make Mattie Sechrist a defendant in error, and did not in any way attempt to revise, review, or reverse the judgment rendered in favor of Anderson against J. L. Sechrist and his wife Mattie Sechrist, and in favor of J. L. Sechrist against A. R. Ross, plaintiff in error.
Plaintiff in error's petition for the writ of error set forth, in hæc verba, the judgment rendered by the court. It then alleges:
The prayer is for citation to issue to J. L. Sechrist and W. F. Anderson, but no mention is made of Mattie Sechrist.
The bond for writ of error described the above judgment, and was in due form, and met the requirements of the statutes in every particular. It made defendants in error Anderson and Sechrist obligees. It did not make Mrs. Mattie Sechrist, one of the defendants in Anderson's trespass to try title suit, an obligee. It is in this particular that defendants in error complain in their motion to dismiss the appeal. We do not sustain the motion. The cause of action asserted by Anderson against Sechrist and his wife was in trespass to try title for 12½ acres of land. The cause of action asserted by Sechrist against Ross was for damages for a breach of warranty of title of the same 12½ acres of land sued for by Anderson. Under the statutes and the adjudicated cases, the trial court correctly consolidated these cases.
Article 2182, Revised Statutes, provides:
"Whenever several suits may be pending in the same court, by the same plaintiff, against the same defendant, for causes of action which may be joined, or where several suits are pending in the same court, by the same plaintiff, against several defendants, which may be joined, the court in which the same are pending may, in its discretion, order such suits to be consolidated."
Article 7735, Revised Statutes, reads:
"When a party is sued for lands, the real owner or warrantor may make himself, or may be made, a party defendant in the suit, and shall be entitled to make such defense as if he had been the original defendant in the action."
In this connection the Supreme Court held in the case of Johns v. Hardin, 81 Tex. 40, 16 S. W. 624, that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Keen's Estate
...the defendant was commanded to appear and the writ was therefore void. Spence v. Morris (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 405; Ross v. Sechrist (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 287; Roy Campbell & Co. v. Roots (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 896; Moorhead v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S.W.(2d) 184. Moreover, ......
-
Gilliam v. Brock
...as shown by the record. Weems v. Watson, 91 Tex. 35, 40 S. W. 722; Slayton v. Horsey, 97 Tex. 341, 78 S. W. 919; Ross v. Sechrist (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 287. Second. It was only necessary for the statement of facts to be filed in the trial court within 80 days from and after the adjourn......
-
Russell v. Finance Corporation of America
...one by default, it might be said that the court never acquired jurisdiction of the defendant under such decisions as Ross v. Sechrist (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 287. But in this case, the defendant having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, the only question he could then ra......
-
Roy Campbell & Co. v. Roots, 4032.
...the judgment for damages against Ross in favor of Sechrist is void, because rendered upon such void citation." Ross v. Sechrist et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 287, 290, and authorities In Lamb-McAshan Co. v. Ellis et al. (Tex. Com. App.) 270 S. W. 547, 548, in passing upon a defective wr......