Spangler v. Spangler

Decision Date03 March 1930
Docket NumberNo. 1898.,1898.
Citation26 S.W.2d 463
PartiesSPANGLER v. SPANGLER et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Roy F. Campbell, Judge.

Action by Frank Spangler and others against Sallie F. Spangler. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Reformed and affirmed.

C. L. Carter, S. H. German, and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, all of Houston, for appellant.

Ward & Ward and J. E. Walton, all of Houston, for appellees.

WALKER, J.

August 31, 1893, Charles Peterson deeded to Mrs. Sallie F. Spangler an undivided two-thirds interest in the Philip Thompson survey of 640 acres of land situated in Harris county, Tex., about nine miles from the city limits of Houston, at the time of the date of the deed. The deed recited a cash consideration of $4,586.67 and the assumption of an outstanding vendor's lien note against the property conveyed in the sum of $533.33 1/3, and that the said land was "to be the separate estate of the said Mrs. Sallie Spangler and paid for out of her separate money." The other one-third interest was owned by the John W. Harris heirs, and on the 2d day of September, 1894, Mrs. Spangler and the Harris heirs partitioned between themselves the entire 640 acres, she deeding them by specific metes and bounds her interest in a certain 213 1/3 acres as their one-third interest in the entire survey, and they deeding to her by specific metes and bounds their interest in 426 2/3 acres as her two-thirds interest in the entire survey. The Harris heirs conveyed Mrs. Spangler's interest to her "as and for her separate property." This suit was filed in the fall of 1927 by S. H. and Frank Spangler against Mrs. S. F. Spangler to recover a two-thirds undivided interest in the 426 2/3 acres held by Mrs. Spangler, on the theory that this land was originally conveyed to her as trustee for them and their deceased brother Harry, the husband of Mrs. S. F. Spangler. By her answer she denied all allegations of the plaintiff's petition and claimed absolute title to the property. She also pleaded laches and the several statutes of limitation.

The consideration for the Peterson land was $746.67 cash, paid by Mrs. S. F. Spangler, at the time the deed was delivered to her, out of her separate funds, and the assumption of the outstanding vendor's lien as above described which, on maturity, was also paid by Mrs. Spangler out of her separate funds, and the transfer by Harry Spangler to Peterson of H. & T. C. Section 18 in Wilbarger county, Tex. This land was conveyed to Peterson upon an agreed value of $6 per acre, which, with the $746.67 cash actually paid, made up the recited cash consideration. Peterson conveyed his land to Mrs. Spangler upon an agreed valuation of $12 per acre. Both valuations as recited in the deed were grossly excessive. The explanation given for this excessive valuation by S. H. Spangler was that land was conveyed in that way in those days. There was outstanding against section 18 all of the original purchase price due the state, which was $2 per acre, less the first payment of $42.66 2/3, being one-thirtieth of the original price. In fact, the equity owned by Harry Spangler in this section at the time he conveyed it to Peterson had little, if any, market value. About three years after this conveyance, the land was forfeited to the state because of the failure of the then owner to keep up the payments and resold later at $1.50 an acre. There was no evidence offered upon the trial showing anything more than a nominal value to this equity. The cash paid by Mrs. Spangler and the note assumed by her practically represented the value of the Peterson land at the time it was conveyed to her. Beginning with 1898, and continuing until the filing of this suit, Mrs. Spangler rendered this land for taxes and paid all taxes due thereon, amounting to about $3,500.

Plaintiffs sought to raise the issue of trust by the following testimony offered principally by S. H. Spangler, but his testimony was corroborated by other witnesses offered by them. Without giving the detailed testimony of these witnesses, we submit the following summary of the facts testified to by them: Prior to 1885, the exact date not being material, S. H. Spangler, Frank Spangler, and Harry Spangler, the three being brothers, formed a partnership for the purpose of farming and ranching in Wilbarger county, and in furtherance of this purpose bought equities in H. & T. C. sections 8, 12, 13, 18, and 19. Sections 13 and 19 were bought directly from the railroad. Sections 8, 12, and 18 were public free school sections. This public school land was sold under the laws then in force regulating such sales. On May 21, 1885, Mrs. Christian Wemple made application to purchase section 18, making affidavit that she desired to purchase the land as a homestead for herself, and that she was not acquiring it in trust for or for the use and benefit of any other person, and that she had not directly or indirectly made any agreement by which the title to be acquired from the state would inure in whole or in part by lease or purchase to any other person. The affidavit further recited that it was understood that any violation of any provision of the law regulating the sale of the land would work a forfeiture of her rights, and further that the object of the sale to her was for the purpose of securing a bona fide settler on the land. The other essentials of the law regulating the sale of the land were embodied in the affidavit.

On June 28, 1889, Mrs. Wemple conveyed her equity in this land to Marshall & Kerr, who assumed the unpaid obligation to the state, and on the 3d of the following December they conveyed this section to S. H. Spangler for a consideration of $640 cash and the assumption by him of the unpaid purchase money due the state, which was the original purchase price of $2, less the one-thirtieth paid by Mrs. Wemple at the time of her purchase. On December 15, 1890, S. H. Spangler conveyed his equity to his brother and partner, Frank Spangler, who likewise assumed the obligation due the state, and by quit-claim deed dated July 20, 1892, Frank conveyed his equity in this section to his brother Harry, who also assumed the obligation due the state. Harry conveyed it to Peterson at the time and on the consideration above expressed. Though Marshall & Kerr conveyed this section to S. H. Spangler, the conveyance, in fact, was for the benefit of all three brothers, and he took the title for himself and as trustee for his brothers. The consideration paid by S. H. Spangler to Marshall & Kerr was partnership funds. The conveyances by S. H. Spangler to Frank and by Frank to Harry were merely for the protection of the partnership interests and not for the purpose of vesting them with the exclusive title thereto. It was understood and agreed by and between the brothers that these conveyances did not affect or extinguish their partnership interest in the land.

School section 8 was awarded to G. W. Carey upon an affidavit in all respects identical with the affidavit of Mrs. Wemple. He conveyed this section to Harry Spangler on May 27, 1887, who took the title on the same conditions under which the title to section 18 was had. Section 12 was awarded to Frank upon the same character of affidavit made by Mrs. Wemple. Frank, notwithstanding the conditions and terms of his affidavit, in fact made the purchase from the state for the benefit of himself and his two brothers under the same agreement with them controlling the title to sections 8 and 18. In thus taking the title to these three sections, they recognized the bar to a joint purchase, and made the several purchases and affidavits as herein detailed on the advice of their attorney. Sections 13 and 19, purchased direct from the railroad company, were held on the same conditions controlling the titles to the public free school sections. It is not necessary to trace the history of any of these sections except section 18, which has already been given. The partnership in 1893 became insolvent because of the protracted drouth extending through 1892 and 1893, and the financial panic of these years. The assets of the partnership were liquidated and the proceeds applied to the debts, all except section 18. The title to this section was placed in Harry Spangler that he might sell it for the account of the partnership. S. H. Spangler took part in the negotiations between his brother Harry and Peterson, and knew upon what terms Harry was to convey section 18 to Peterson, and it was understood between them that Peterson was to convey the Harris county lands to Harry.

Neither S. H. Spangler nor his brother Frank knew that Harry had violated his trust agreement with them by having Peterson convey the land to his wife, Mrs. S. F. Spangler, until the Sunday following the date of the delivery by Peterson of his deed to Mrs. Spangler. At that time he went to see Harry and his wife about the matter and asked why the deed had been so made. They explained to him that it was made to Mrs. Spangler instead of to Harry because he was under bond with the railroad company, and they thought it best not to hold the title in his name. At that time Mrs. Spangler recognized her trust relation to S. H. and Frank Spangler, and agreed with them to hold the title in trust for them jointly. Harry Spangler died in 1902, and just prior to his death Mrs. Spangler again recognized her trust relation to S. H. and Frank Spangler.

By her testimony Mrs. Spangler denied any knowledge of any trust in section 18. She testified that this section belonged to Harry individually, and that she understood that S. H. and Frank had no interest in it, and that the sale was made to Peterson by the purchase of the Harris county property in order that Harry might save what equity he had in it. She denied the conversations between her and S. H. Spangler, as testified to by him. She...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hall v. Rawls
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 1945
    ...146 S.W. 284; Grennan v. Forgeron, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 885; Redwine v. Coleman, Tex. Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 921; Spangler v. Spangler, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 463, modified and affirmed, Tex.Com.App., 41 S. W.2d 60; Bell County v. Felts, Tex.Civ. App., 120 S.W. 1065, reversed on other gro......
  • Gurley v. Lindsley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 2, 1972
    ...III Scott on Trusts § 219.1 (3d ed. 1967). The rule is essentially the same as for adverse possession of land. See Spangler v. Spangler, 26 S.W.2d 463, 469 (Tex.Civ.App. 1930), mod. on other grds., 41 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Comm. App. 1931); Montgomery v. Trueheart, 146 S.W. 284, 287-288 (Tex.Civ.A......
  • Talley v. Howsley, 2338.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1943
    ... ... 455, § 215. Texas decisions cited in support of the text are Spangler v. Spangler, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S. W.2d 463; Abilene State Bank v. Donnelly, Tex.Civ.App., 277 S.W. 447; Kuehn v. Kuehn, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W. 918, ... ...
  • Morrison v. Farmer
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1948
    ...Ruling Case Law under title of "Trusts", §§ 57 and 78; Vol. 2 Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, Chapter 23, §§ 451 to 469; Spangler v. Spangler, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 463, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 41 S.W.2d A court of law looks only to the legal ownership according to the deeds evidencing titl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT