Rudman v. Chandler

Decision Date18 February 1953
Docket NumberNo. 12513,12513
Citation255 S.W.2d 592
PartiesRUDMAN v. CHANDLER et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Lasseter, Spruiell, Lowry, Potter & Lasater, Tyler, for appellant.

Sidney P. Chandler, Austin, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling appellant's plea of privilege to be sued in the county of his residence. The case concerns Section 14 of Article 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., and more particularly whether the pleadings assert a suit for relief by way of specific performance or one for the determination of equitable title.

Appellees, M. H. Chandler and Sidney P. Chandler, in their first amended original petition, by a suit in trespass to try title, alleged that they were the owners in fee simple of 3/4 of the mineral interest in an oil and gas lease, subject to a 1/20 overriding interest in 279.72 acres of described lands. They sued for title, possession and damages. Alternatively they alleged that the appellant, Rudman, and the Petroleum Reserve Corporation of Dallas, acting by its agent, on December 8, 1948, sold and agreed to assign to the appellees, a 3/4 mineral interest, less 6/20 overriding interest in a leasehold interest in the 279.72 acres of land. Appellees alleged further that they fully complied with the contract of purchase by virtue of which they became the owners of the superior equitable title to the mineral interest, but that the Petroleum Reserve Corporation of Dallas assigned the mineral interest to appellant, Rudman. Pleading further in the alternative, appellees alleged that appellant, Rudman, acting through his agent, on March 19, 1950, contracted to assign to appellees 200 acres out of a described oil and gas lease upon the appellees' indemnifying him against all claims arising out of any action for non-development or drainage of the lease. Appellees asserted further that they fully performed that contract by executing and delivering a written indemnity agreement which the appellant accepted and retained. And, still pleading alternatively, appellees alleged that on October 23, 1951, appellant, Rudman, agreed to assign appellees the legal title to 200 acres, they already owning the superior equitable title, upon appellees' execution of an additional indemnity agreement. Appellees alleged that they executed the second indemnity agreement and delivered it to appellant, who accepted and retained it, but still refused to assign to appellees the 200 described acres, by force of which appellees were damaged, their title clouded and development of the lease prevented. Appellees sought a judgment for title and possession of the described lease, removal of cloud from their title, recovery of damages, and for general relief. appellees alleged full and complete performance and payment of the total consideration for the land; there was no prayer for specific performance.

Appellant's residence is in Smith County, to which he seeks to remove the suit. The land is admittedly located in San Patricio County where the suit was filed. Appellant, Rudman, contends that the trial court erred in holding that exception 14 of Article 1995 controlled this case, and reasons that the suit is primarily one for the enforcement of an equitable right by way of specific performance, which is an in personam action with venue in the county of the appellant's residence. Appellees deny the suit is primarily one for specific performance, but reason that it asserts their superior equitable title, and is one for the recovery of 'lands or damages thereto, * * * or to quiet the title to land * * *' under the provisions of Art. 1995, § 14.

We construe the petition as one which states a suit to recover land rather than one for specific performance. The Supreme Court in Magee v. Young, 145 Tex. 485, 198 S.W.2d 883, 886, recognized and stated the difference between the two kinds of suits, saying:

'* * * In the Mondragon case (Mondragon v. Mondragon) (113 Tex. 404, 257 S.W. 215) it was held that a receipt for purchase money was as respects the rights of the grantee an executed contract to convey, and that, as such, it vested an equitable title in the grantee superior to the grantor's legal title. That is in accord with the general rule that performance by the vendee in a contract to convey vests the equitable title in him.'

Olive-Sternenberg Lumber Co. v. Gordon, 138 Tex. 459, 159 S.W.2d 845, 847, had previously held:

'We recognize that a bond for title with the consideration fully paid may constitute an equitable title such as will support an action in trespass to try title.'

Johnson v. Wood, 138 Tex. 106, 157 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Com.App.), stated with reference to the legal consequences of certain jury findings:

'According to those findings Johnson had paid the purchase price and fully performed his obligations under the contract before Wood sought to cancel same. Upon such performance he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Anglo Exploration Corp. v. Grayshon
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1979
    ...337 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); Woodworth v. Rogers, 367 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1963, no writ); Rudman v. Chandler, 255 S.W.2d 592 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1953, no Two recent decisions of the Corpus Christi Court of Civil Appeals are directly in point with t......
  • Woodworth v. Rogers, 14088
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 1963
    ...as such came strictly within the mandatory provisions of Subd. 14, Art. 1995. The same rule was applied by this Court in Rudman v. Chandler, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 592, no writ history, where the pleadings asserted a suit for relief by way of specific performance or one for the determinat......
  • Umbaugh v. Miers, 12522
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1953
    ...of 1952. The allegations of the petition do not show that appellant was possessed of an equitable title to the land. Rudman v. Chandler, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 592, decided by this Court on February 18, 1953; Gates v. Coquat, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W.2d 614; Macom v. Gallagher, Tex.Civ.App.,......

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