Speed v. Sadberry
Decision Date | 11 November 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 8463.) |
Citation | 190 S.W. 781 |
Parties | SPEED v. SADBERRY et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Young County; J. W. Akin, Judge.
Action by Arthur Speed against John Sadberry and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Judgment affirmed.
Arnold & Taylor, of Henrietta, and Fred T. Arnold, of Graham, for appellant. C. W. Johnson, of Graham, for appellees.
September 27, 1901, survey 74, grantee B. R. I. R., containing 160 acres and located in Young county, was awarded by the land commissioner to J. F. Gilmore under the act approved April 16, 1895 (Acts 24th Leg. c. 48), and on October 7, 1902, survey 73, same original grantee and same acreage, and in the same county, was awarded to said Gilmore. Gilmore and wife, on February 1, 1907, conveyed by deed said tracts to T. E. Mills. On December 3, 1909, said Mills and wife conveyed the same land to A. N. Gordon, and on December 3, 1912, said Gordon and wife conveyed to F. P. Burch said two quarter sections. The interest to the state from November 1, 1912, to November 1, 1913, and due on the latter date, remained unpaid up to August 7, 1914, on which latter date there was filed in the office of the county clerk of Young county an instrument signed by the commissioner of the general land office and providing that these two quarter sections were subject to forfeiture for nonpayment of interest due November 1, 1913, and announcing that if said interest was not paid, said two tracts would be on the market for sale August 9, 1914. In said instrument the land mentioned was classified as agricultural, instead of grazing, as in the award to Gilmore, and the price placed at $4 minimum, instead of $1 and $1.50, respectively. On October 2, 1914, there was filed in the office of the county clerk of Young county an award, dated 9/25/14, of these two quarter sections, signed by the land commissioner. By this instrument the two tracts in question were awarded to Arthur Speed at $6.55 an acre, date of sale being August 10, 1914. The original award to Speed was made September 24, 1914. On October 27, 1914, said Speed sent to the general land office his money order for the interest, to wit, $11.65, and on November 2d following, the commissioner of the general land office accepted said remittance. On January 11, 1915, appellant filed his petition in the district court of Young county in form of trespass to try title against John Sadberry and Frank Burch. He alleged that the rental value of said land was $5 per annum, and that the defendants had torn fences, sheds, and houses off said land, since they had unlawfully entered upon the same, of the reasonable value of $400, and he prayed for judgment for the land, rents, and damages. In the defendants' answer, Sadberry disclaimed any interest in or title to the land except as the tenant of Burch. Burch answered by general and special demurrers, and specially pleaded the 5 and 10 years' statutes of limitation, valuable improvements made in good faith, and further pleaded title through purchase from the state. He further specially pleaded that it had been represented to him, and he so believed, that he had until November 1, 1914, to pay the interest due the state on said land, and that he was informed, and so understood, that the interest due November 1, 1913, had been paid by his immediate grantor, and that he still believed that the payment for same had been made according to the contract between the defendant and his grantor. It was further alleged that, if any pretended forfeiture had been made by the general land office and its officials for a pretended nonpayment of interest, the same was done without any notice to defendant, and that if he had received such notice, he would have paid such interest. He further pleaded that it had been the immemorial custom of the general land office to issue to the owners of school land notice of arrears of interest that forfeitures might be avoided and the purchaser protected from loss, and, further, that as soon as he learned that interest was due and claimed by the general land office, he did, on August 5, 1914, tender to the general land office all interest due, but that said tender had been refused by the commissioner, on claim that the land had been forfeited, reclassified, and sold, and said commissioner declined to reinstate the defendant in his rights as a purchaser. Defendant, in his pleadings, tendered in court the interest, and also the part of the purchase money due on the original sale, together with patent fee, etc., and prayed that said money be transmitted to the treasurer of the state of Texas. Upon a hearing before the court, judgment was rendered that plaintiff take nothing by reason of his suit, and from this judgment plaintiff appeals.
Appellant presents only two assignments of error, which are as follows:
There are contained in the record no findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court, and therefore it does not affirmatively appear that the judgment of the court rested upon the basis asserted in the first assignment. The court qualifies plaintiff's bill of exception upon which this assignment is predicated as follows:
In order for plaintiff to be entitled to judgment, it was necessary that he show in himself title superior to that under which defendant claimed, and, de...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ideal Bakery v. Schryver
... ... St. Louis etc. Ry. Co., 146 ... Mo.App. 711, 125 S.W. 544, and cases cited; State v ... Dunn, 53 Ore. 304, 99 P. 278, 100 P. 258; Speed v ... Sadberry, 190 S.W. 781; T. B. Jones & Co. v ... Pelly, 128 S.W. 305; Halbren v. Goldberg, et ... al., 175 N.Y.S. 474; Croker v ... ...
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Inman
...City of Austin v. Forbis (Tex. Civ. App.) 86 S. W. 29; Hatch v. Pullman Sleeping Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 84 S. W. 246; Speed v. Sadberry (Tex. Civ. App.) 190 S. W. 781. In Henry v. Phillips, 105 Tex. 459, 151 S. W. 533, the Supreme Court considered the probative value of hearsay evidence, ......
-
Egli v. Hutton
... ... 454; Daniel v. Harvin, 10 Tex.Civ.App. 439, 31 ... S.W. 421; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hirsch (Tex. Civ ... App.) 84 S.W. 394; Speed v. Sadberry (Tex. Civ ... App.) 190 S.W. 781; Western Land Sec. Co. v ... Daniels-Jones Co., 113 Minn. 319, 129 N.W. 587; ... ...
-
Lewis v. Heath
...carefully guarded and the law pertaining thereto strictly enforced. I refrain from further reference to that case. In Speed v. Sadberry (Tex. Civ. App.) 190 S. W. 781, Judge Buck, of the Fort Worth court, discussed an assignment to the effect that the court erred in holding that the defenda......