Singletary v. Hill

• Decision Date: 01 January 1875
• Citation: 43 Tex. 588
• Parties: F. SINGLETARY ET AL. v. J. R. HILL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

43 Tex. 588

F. SINGLETARY ET AL.

v.J. R. HILL.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1875.

APPEAL from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. George Lane.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Martin Casey, for appellants.

J. G. Hazlewood, for appellee, cited Peters v. Caton, 6 Tex., 559;Foster v. Wells, 4 Tex., 101;Merle v. Andrews, 4 Tex., 211;Poor v. Boyce, 12 Tex., 440;Shannon v. Taylor, 16 Tex., 419;Giddings v. Steele, 28 Tex., 732;Berry v. Young, 15 Tex., 369;Howard v. North, 5 Tex., 316;Spann v. Sterns, 18 Tex., 563;Jones v. Shaw, 15 Tex., 578.

GOULD, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

The plaintiffs in error brought trespass to try title to two hundred acres of land, being the same land conveyed on September 3, 1856, by J. B. Youngblood to his daughter Mary Dillard, the mother of the plaintiffs. The deed recites a consideration of natural love and affection, and of one hundred dollars, and conveys the land “unto the said Mary Dillard and the heirs of her body”--“to have and to hold unto her, the said Mary Dillard, and her said heirs forever.” Under this conveyance it is clear that Mary Dillard took an absolute estate, and not merely an estate for life. (Hancock v. Butler, 21 Tex., 807, and authorities there cited; also Hawkins v. Lee, 22 Tex., 547;O'Brien v. Hilburn, 22 Tex., 623.) The claim of the plaintiffs must be supported, if at all, in their right as heirs of their deceased mother, and not as purchasers under this deed.

The defendant claimed title through G. W. Dillard, husband of Mary Dillard, who administered on her estate and inventoried the land in controversy, stating (and the record contains evidence tending to support the claim) that about seventy-five acres of it was community property, and the balance the wife's separate estate. Subsequently, on the application of said G. W. Dillard, the County Court ordered a partition of the estate, consisting only of this tract of land, between him and the other distributees, the plaintiffs in this suit. The court having appointed a guardian ad litem for the minors and fixed the respective shares of the distributees, and the commissioners to partition having reported that partition was impracticable, G. W. Dillard was allowed to take the land at its appraised value, eight hundred dollars coin. (Paschal's Dig., art. 1360.) At a subsequent term of the court a decree was made vesting the title in G. W. Dillard, the decree reciting that he had produced satisfactory evidence that he had paid to each of the distributees their proper share of the eight hundred dollars. Shortly afterwards, in consideration of eight hundred dollars, he conveyed the land to Joseph M. Haskins, and on February 7, 1870, Haskins conveys to defendant Hill the consideration recited, being eighteen hundred dollars.

These proceedings of the County Court, and the conveyances thereunder, were specially pleaded by defendant, and it was also alleged and proved that plaintiffs Singletary and wife were parties to the partition, and had received and receipted for their share of the eight hundred dollars; also that G. W. Dillard after the partition, but before the title was decreed to him, had qualified as guardian of the other plaintiffs, and had inventoried their share of the proceeds of the land. There was no pleading on the part of the plaintiffs impeaching the validity of...