Silverman v. Landrum

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Fisher
• Citation: Silverman v. Landrum, 56 S.W. 107 (Tex. App. 1900)
• Decision Date: 21 March 1900
• Parties: SILVERMAN v. LANDRUM et al.

56 S.W. 107

SILVERMAN v. LANDRUM et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 21, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Falls county; Sam R. Scott, Judge.

Trespass to try title, by S. A. Silverman against Mary E. Landrum and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Finks & Gordon, Rice & Bartlett, and John N. Wharton, for appellant. Z. I. Harlan and Martin & Eddins, for appellees.

FISHER, C. J.

This is an action of trespass to try title by the appellant, Silverman, against the appellees to recover the 100 acres of land in controversy. Silverman purchased the land at trustee's sale under a deed of trust executed in 1885 by Landrum and his wife, Mary E. Landrum, one of the parties to this suit. Landrum is dead. Mrs. Landrum, together with her children, also parties, as a defense to plaintiff's action claimed that the deed of trust was void, because at the time of its execution the 100 acres in controversy was a part of the homestead of her and her deceased husband. It appears from the facts that Landrum and his wife, in 1876, owned and were in possession of about 1,020 acres of land, of which the 100 acres in controversy was a part. At that time they executed a conveyance to certain named trustees of about 920 acres of the tract for the benefit of their children. By the terms of the instrument. Landrum and his wife retained a life estate in the use and enjoyment of the property, and it was expressly stated in the instrument that Landrum was to retain possession and control of the property and the rents and revenues therefrom during his life, for the support and maintenance of his family. The 100 acres in controversy was not conveyed by that instrument. Thereafter, in 1885, Landrum and his wife executed the deed of trust under which the appellant claims title to secure a loan of $600. At the same time Landrum and his wife designated 400 acres of the 920-acre tract that they had previously conveyed to the trustees as their homestead, which homestead designation did not include any part of the 100 acres in controversy. The verdict and judgment in the court below were in favor of the defendants.

We have carefully examined into every assignment of error, and conclude that none are well taken except those that complain of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We think that Landrum and his wife retained such an interest in the 920 acres previously conveyed in trust for their chidren as would permit...