Smith's Heirs v. Hirsch
Decision Date | 12 July 1917 |
Docket Number | (No. 225.) |
Citation | 197 S.W. 754 |
Parties | SMITH'S HEIRS v. HIRSCH et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Chas. E. Ashe, Judge.
Suit by Mary A. Smith against Jules Hirsch and others, in which the heirs of Mary Ann Smith were substituted as parties plaintiff. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
P. K. Ewing, of Houston, Willett Wilson, of Port Lavaca, and D. F. Rowe, of Houston, for appellants. Wilson, Dabney & King, T. J. Lawhon, Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, Andrews, Streetman, Burns & Logue, J. W. Lockett, L. A. Carlton, R. H. Holland, Maurice Hirsch, Geo. A. Hill, Jr., W. H. Wilson, and S. H. Brashear, all of Houston, for appellees.
Mary Ann Smith, on the 15th day of April, 1875, owned in her separate right, and in the John Brown Jones one-third league survey in Harris county, Tex., which may be described as follows: (1) 200 acres known as the "Dunman Homestead," and (2) approximately an undivided one-tenth interest in the remaining part of two tracts of 492 and 279½ acres, after deducting therefrom said 200 acres.
Mary Ann Smith, at the date above mentioned, was a married woman, the wife of Nathan W. Smith, and, joined by her husband, on said 15th day of April, 1875, said Mary Ann Smith made and executed to Pleasant S. Humble, of Harris county, Tex., for the recited consideration of $500, the following deed:
This deed bears the following acknowledgment:
This deed shows to have been filed for record in Harris county, Tex., May 14, 1875.
Mary Ann Smith, on May 30, 1901 (she being then a widow), made, executed, and delivered to Sidney Westheimer, for a recited consideration of $5, the following deed:
This deed bears the acknowledgment of Mary Ann Smith, which is in the usual and regular form for a single woman, and which is certified by Thos. L. Cross, a notary public of Galveston county, Tex., on May 30, 1901.
This suit, as originally filed, was an action of trespass to try title simply, and was brought by Mary Ann Smith, as sole plaintiff, on December 7, 1904, against Jules Hirsch, Sidney Westheimer, and others unnecessary to name, to recover from said defendants the title and possession of the land described in the above deeds. The action remained one of trespass to try title until the filing of plaintiffs' third amended original petition, by which, for the first time, the plaintiff, Mary Ann Smith, also sought to cancel and set aside the deed from herself to Westheimer, above described, on the alleged ground that said deed was obtained by fraud practiced upon her by Westheimer. Afterwards, plaintiff, Mary Ann Smith, filed her fourth amended original petition, by which, in addition to the allegations of trespass to try title and the allegation that said deed to Westheimer was obtained by fraud, she also sought to cancel and annul said deed to Westheimer on the ground of mutual mistake in its execution. A fifth amended original petition was filed by the plaintiff, Mary Ann Smith, containing substantially, the same allegations and prayer contained in her fourth amended petition.
Mary Ann Smith, on January 5, 1915, died, and on September 22, 1915, by the sixth amended original petition, Arthur Smith, Harry Smith, S. J. Smith, Thomas Smith, Elizabeth Keller, and her husband, A. F. Keller, Sadie Nelson, a feme sole, Della George, and her husband, E. M. George, Lilla Stephenson, and her husband, Lex Stephenson, and Lula Pettit, and her husband, R. N. Pettit, the sole surviving heirs of said Mary Ann Smith, made themselves parties plaintiff, in the stead of Mary Ann Smith, and were permitted to continue the prosecution of this suit as the heirs of Mary Ann Smith.
The sixth amended original petition, which is quite lengthy, in addition to the action of trespass to try title, also alleges that the deed from Mary Ann Smith to Westheimer, above described, was procured by fraud perpetrated upon Mary Ann Smith by said Westheimer, or, if not so procured by fraud, that then the same was the result of a mutual mistake, and that, in either event, it ought to be held by the court that said Westheimer was simply a trustee of the legal title of said land for the benefit of said Mary Ann Smith, with the equitable title in her. Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants, other than the defendant Westheimer, claimed through him under said deed, and were not innocent purchasers, but, if held to be so, plaintiffs had the right to recover from their vendors, in each instance, the value of the land at the time of trial, or the price for which sold, with lawful interest, as should be to the advantage of the plaintiffs, and as they might elect. There were other averments in the petition, which it is unnecessary here to mention. All of the defendants duly answered by general denial, plea of not guilty, pleas of innocent purchaser, and pleas of limitation.
After conclusion of the evidence, the trial court peremptorily instructed a verdict in favor of all defendants, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants upon such verdict, and plaintiffs were allowed to take nothing by the suit. To this action on the part of the court plaintiffs duly excepted, and the case has been properly brought here for review.
Appellants' first assignment of error is as follows:
"The court erred in peremptorily instructing the jury to return a verdict in favor of defendants, over the objection and exception of the plaintiffs, duly taken and preserved, because the defendants were not entitled to a verdict as matter of law, but, on the contrary, the evidence was amply sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury under the issues entitling plaintiffs to recover against the defendants, or some of them, as shown by plaintiffs' bill of exceptions No. 11."
The first proposition under this assignment is:
"The evidence reasonably warranted the jury in inferring, in connection with the other requisite facts, that the quitclaim deed from Mary A. Smith to Westheimer was obtained under circumstances of fraud, or, if not, of mistake, as alleged, entitling plaintiffs to relief."
There are other propositions under the assignment, by which it is contended that defendants were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wiggins v. Holmes
...and was therefore inadmissible. Revised Statutes, article 3716; Peil v. Warren (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 1052; Smith's Heirs v. Hirsch (Tex. Civ. App.) 197 S. W. 754, 762, par. 5; Dodson v. Watson (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. The appellees in their petition set up the judgment recovered by J......
-
City of Corpus Christi v. Gregg
...v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 343, 344; Hayter v. Hudgens, Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W. 480; Smith's Heirs v. Hirsch, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W. 754; Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. of New York v. Texas Sand & Gravel Co., Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 551. A corollary to this rule, a......
-
Hall v. Collins
...et al., Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W. 567; Peil et al. v. Warren, Jr. et al., Tex.Civ.App., 187 S. W. 1052, writ refused; Smith's Heirs v. Hirsch et al., Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W. 754, writ refused; Colvard v. Goodwin et al., Tex.Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 786; Stewart et al. v. Miller et al., Tex.Civ.App.,......
-
Schroeder v. Brandon
...& P. Ry. Co., 119 Tex. 456, 32 S.W.2d 637, 73 A.L.R. 89; Peters v. City of San Antonio, Tex. Civ.App., 195 S.W. 989; Smith's Heirs v. Hirsch, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W. 754 (wr. ref.); United Emp. & Cas. Co. v. Curry, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 882; Brenan v. Eubanks, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 513;......