Saunders v. Isbell

• Decision Date: 03 October 1892
• Citation: 24 S.W. 307
• Parties: SAUNDERS et al. v. ISBELL et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

24 S.W. 307

SAUNDERS et al. v. ISBELL et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

October 3, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Coryell county; C. K. Bell, Judge.

Action by John J. Isbell and others against J. R. Saunders and others to recover and partition certain land. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for an undivided part of such land, defendants appeal. Reversed.

White & Taylor, for appellants. Jones. Kendall & Sleeper, for appellees.

KEY, J.

This suit was brought by appellees to recover and partition 640 acres of land, patented to the heirs of George Welch, January 28, 1854. They claim title to the land as children and heirs of William and Mattie O. E. Isbell, deceased. William Isbell bought the land at a sale made by the administrator of George Welch's estate, May 22, 1854, said Mattie O. E. being at the time his wife. Mrs. Isbell died in 1865, and appellees are her heirs. William Isbell died in 1877 or 1878. Acting under proper orders of the probate court, the administrator of said Isbell sold the entire survey to J. R. Saunders July 23, 1878; and Saunders has conveyed some of the land to appellants Bone and Summers. July 31, 1876, William Isbell conveyed 25 acres of said land to Margaret Hood, and the deed therefor was duly recorded in Coryell county, where the land is situated, August 8, 1876. One of the children of William and Mattie O. E. Isbell died intestate March 24, 1865, and its father inherited one-half, and its brothers and sisters, appellees herein, inherited the other half, of its interest in the land. Excluding the 25 acres sold to Margaret Hood, the court, trying the case without a jury, rendered judgment for appellants for thirteen twenty-fourths and for appellees for eleven twenty-fourths of the land. There is no statement of facts. The conclusions of fact filed by the district judge show the foregoing facts, and show also that at the time Saunders bought the land he had no knowledge that William Isbell had ever been married, nor did he know that appellees were children of said William and Mattie O. E. Isbell; and that he paid full value for the land. It is contended by appellants that judgment should have been rendered for them for all the land, upon the theory that Saunders was an innocent purchaser for value. Appellees resist this contention, and assert (1) that one who acquires land at an administration sale is subject to the rule of caveat emptor, and not entitled to be protected as an innocent purchaser; and (2) that, as the court's findings only show that Saunders bought without knowledge that William Isbell had ever been married, etc., such finding is not equivalent to a finding that he bought without notice. If the burden of proof upon the question of notice rested upon appellants, this latter contention might avail to affirm the judgment. However, the rule appears to be settled in this state that in a contest between one who has purchased the legal title and one holding the equitable title the burden rests upon the latter to show that the former had notice of the superior equitable title when he purchased. Barnes v. Jamison, ...