Shelp v. Decker
Citation | 262 S.W. 807 |
Decision Date | 28 May 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 1122.) |
Parties | SHELP et al. v. DECKER. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Chas. E. Ashe, Judge.
Suit by H. R. Decker against Elizabeth M. Shelp and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Garrison & Watson, of Houston, for appellants.
Carothers & Brown, of Houston, for appellee.
This suit was instituted in the form of trespass to try title by appellee against appellants to recover the title and possession of a certain lot in the city of Houston, Harris county, Tex. Appellants answered by a plea of not guilty, and specially that the deeds from them to appellee, upon which his title to the land rested, though in form an absolute deed, were executed under an agreement that they were to constitute a mortgage. Appellee was awarded the lot in controversy under a verdict instructed by the court.
Appellee offered in evidence a warranty deed from Mrs. Elizabeth M. Shelp conveying to him the lot in controversy, dated the 1st day of June, 1920, reciting a consideration of $3,524. He also offered a deed from appellant W B. Shelp of the same date, conveying to him the same lot on a recited consideration of $1. Appellee rested his case on this evidence. Appellant W. B. Shelp then testified for the defendants as follows:
All other evidence offered by appellants was excluded, to which action of the court due exception was taken. The bill of exception reflects that appellant W. B. Shelp would have testified, had the court received his evidence, to the following facts:
On the 1st day of June, 1920, a Mr. Sweeney held a deed of trust against the lot in controversy, to secure an indebtedness which on that date amounted to $3,524; that Sweeney had advertised the property for sale on that day and was proposing to sell it at 10 o'clock a. m.; that he and his mother for some time prior to that day had been negotiating with appellee to get him to take up and carry for them the Sweeney indebtedness, and that appellee had agreed with them in their negotiations to pay off the Sweeney indebtedness that appellee was very friendly with appellants and had been a guest in their home prior to June 1, 1920; for some reason appellee postponed from day to day the taking up of the Sweeney indebtedness; that on June 1, 1920, he again proposed to take up this indebtedness, and, to give him time to do so, the Sweeney sale was postponed from 10 o'clock a. m. until some hour in the afternoon. Thereupon on June 1, 1920, after the sale had been postponed, appellants executed, acknowledged, and delivered to appellee the following instrument:
We quote from the bill of exception the following additional testimony of W. B. Shelp as offered by appellants:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tansil v. McCumber
...N. W. 586;Bilbo v. Ball, 194 Iowa, 875, 188 N. W. 753;Altenbrun v. First National Bank, 47 N. D. 266, 181 N. W. 590, 908;Shelp v. Decker (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 807;Melenky v. Melen, 206 App. Div. 46, 200 N. Y. S. 730. [9][10] II. As the deed was in equity a mortgage the equity of redemp......
-
Tansil v. McCumber
... ... 586; Bilbo v ... Ball, 194 Iowa 875, 188 N.W. 753; Altenbrun v. First ... Nat. Bank, 47 N.D. 266 (181 N.W. 590); Shelp v ... Decker (Tex. Civ. App.), 262 S.W. 807; Melenky v ... Melen, 206 A.D. 46 (200 N.Y.S. 730) ... II. As ... the deed ... ...
-
Smith v. Swendsen
... ... 775.) ... The ... exception however does not prevail if the writing is ... ambiguous or uncertain. (41 C. J. 353, sec. 118; Shelp v ... Decker, (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S.W. 807; and ... respondents' authorities virtually so hold ... McMurry ... v. Mercer, (Tex. Civ ... ...
-
Wilcox v. Dillard
...contemporaneous writing must yield to the facts as they actually existed, and to the contract as actually made." Shelp et al. v. Decker (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 807. "If land is conveyed by an absolute deed but with an agreement that the grantee shall effect the sale of it, and out of the......