Sisk v. Randon
Decision Date | 18 November 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 9433.,9433. |
Citation | 33 S.W.2d 1082 |
Parties | SISK et al. v. RANDON et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Brazoria County; W. S. Sproles, Special Judge.
Action by R. J. Sisk and others against Adranna Randon and others. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Styles & Erickson, of Bay City, A. E. & C. B. Masterson, of Angleton, and Oliver J. Todd, of Beaumont, for appellants.
Follett, Evans & Hill and Rucks & Enlow, all of Angleton, and Harry Holmes, Andrews, Streetman, Logue & Mobley, and Palmer Bradley, all of Houston, for appellees.
Appellants assail an adverse judgment whereby—pursuant to the return of an instructed verdict to that effect, notwithstanding their own claims of ownership thereof both as heirs of William and Millie Alston and under the three, five, and ten-year statutes of limitation—the learned trial court vested in the appellees the title to the easterly 50 acres, or river end, of the William and Millie Alston 100-acre homestead tract in the Alsbury league on the Bernard river in Brazoria county.
In the state of the record on appeal the controlling question presented here is whether or not the appended instrument the appellees held under should be construed as being such a conveyance on its face as passed the title to the 50 acres involved to its grantees immediately upon delivery to them, or whether, as appellants contend, it should be regarded as at most only such an executory undertaking as rendered parol testimony tending to show that, it was intended as a mortgage or deed of trust admissible, to wit:
While appellants formally sued for the entire 100 acres the quoted instrument thus described, only the title to the easterly or riverend half of it was actually at issue, as they admittedly owned the other one-half; the trial court held the legal effect of the instrument to have been an absolute conveyance at that time of the easterly 50 acres to the grantees to whom it was therein apportioned, and in consonance—in directing the verdict—ordered the finding to be in favor of the appellees as to that, and in favor of the appellants as to the remainder; we approve that determination and affirm the judgment.
It is felt that no better epitome of the considerations and supporting authorities, upon which this construction is rested, may be made than is thus done in the able brief for the appellees:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. Rudd
... ... These are words of present conveyance and complete alienation. Hammett v. Farrar, Tex.Com.App., 29 S.W.2d 949; Sisk v. Random, Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 1082, Id., 123 Tex. 326, 70 S.W.2d 689. It does not contain a warranty but none is necessary to a valid ... ...
-
Cooper v. U.S.
...a reservation of a life estate. A grantor may reserve the right to occupy a house on the premises conveyed. Sisk v. Randon, 33 S.W.2d 1082 (Tex.Civ.App.Galveston 1930), writ granted, (Mar. 4, 1931) and aff'd, 123 Tex. 326, 70 S.W.2d 689; Setliff v. Fielder, 422 S.W.2d 527 (Tex.Civ.App. — Co......
-
Hubert v. Davis
...lots in the subdivision. The word "grant" is a word of present conveyance indicating complete alienation. See Sisk v. Randon, 33 S.W.2d 1082, 1085 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1930), aff'd, 123 Tex. 326, 70 S.W.2d 689 1934). From the language of paragraph 13, it is reasonable to conclude that Ba......
-
Hall v. Barrett
... ... The Supreme Court, in Sisk v. Randon, 123 Tex. 326, 70 S.W.2d 689, affirming Court of Civil Appeals, 33 S.W.2d 1082, holds that a grantee's agreement to support the grantor ... ...