Steed v. Petty

Citation65 Tex. 490
Decision Date16 February 1886
Docket NumberCase No. 2076
PartiesW. M. STEED v. B. M. PETTY ET AL.
CourtSupreme Court of Texas

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. J. P. Stevenson, special judge.

August 3, 1879, Mrs. V. E. Petty, joined by her husband, B. M. Petty, and her sister, Miss L. R. Steed, brought this suit of trespass to try title against the tenants of their brother, W. M. Steed, for a tract of two hundred and twenty acres of land in Houston county. W. M. Steed defended as landlord. He disclaimed, except as to the northwest and southwest quarters, or one hundred and ten acres; admitted that the legal title was in plaintiffs for the whole tract, but, as to the one hundred and ten acres claimed, set up a verbal partition, improvments in good faith, etc., and that plaintiffs were equitably estopped from recovering the land.

Plaintiffs, by supplemental petition, specially excepted, denied the partition, etc., and alleged the coverture of Mrs. Petty and minority of L. R. Steed. Shortly after the suit, L. R. Steed married M. C Dupuy, and died October 14, 1880, without issue; her husband administered on her estate, and, with Petty and wife, prosecuted the suit. The exceptions of plaintiffs were not acted upon by the court below.

W. G. Steed, father of the parties, on October 3, 1868, conveyed to E. T. Steed, his wife, the two hundred and twenty acres sued for, which was all the land he owned, except one hundred acres. The deed recites a consideration of $1,550. March 29, 1869, Mrs. Steed made a will bequeathing all her property to her two daughters, Mrs. Petty and L. R. Steed, except that $200 were to be paid to her granddaughter, Mamie West, when certain land in Alabama was sold. The will mentions money and land left to the testatrix by her father, the land being eighty acres in Perry county, Alabama, also her interest in her brother's estate, and mentioned some personal property, but does not mention the land in controversy. The will appointed Mrs. Petty executrix. It was not probated until July 24, 1879. Mrs. Steed died in the fall of 1869, leaving four children, M. D. Steed, the oldest, Mrs. Petty next, Wm. M. Steed and L. R. Steed the youngest. Mamie West was the only child of a deceased daughter, and was five or six years old at the time. Mrs. Petty married before her mother's death. L. R. Steed was born January 12, 1855, and at the time of the alleged division was sixteen, and Wm. M. Steed twenty years of age.

M. D. Steed testified: In January or February, 1870, the two hundred and twenty acres sued for, and the cattle and a horse and wagon left by mother, were divided equally among the four children. Mother left a will. Father sent for it. I don't know that I read it or heard it read, but it gave all of her property to our sisters. Mrs. Petty and L. R. Steed said that if they got all of mother's property, Wm. Steed and I would get father's property, and it was agreed that the personal property and this land should be divided among all of us, and that we should in same manner divide the property that father might leave at his death. The division was made at father's place. B. M. Petty, L. R. Steed and Wm. Steed, myself and Geo. Adair, our cousin, were present. Adair, who is dead, represented L. R. Steed. In the division,I got the southwest, William Steed the northwest, Mrs. Petty the northeast, and L. R. Steed the southeast quarter. I think my tract was the poorest and L. R. Steed's the best; the division was a fair one. I went on my tract in July, 1870; cleared and fenced six or eight acres, and next year cultivated eight or ten acres. Wm. Steed improved his tract in 1871, and cleared and fenced ten or fifteen acres. In 1873, I sold my tract to Wm. Steed for $100 cash and a bale of cotton worth $60. Ever since 1870, some portion of the land has been cultivated. After I sold to Wm. Steed he had possession of the northwest and southwest quarters, and claimed the land as his own. He added improvements, so that for three or four years before this suit he had thirty-five or forty acres in cultivation, and had put up two cotton houses. The land was all unimproved until William Steed and I improved it. The portions allotted to Mrs. Petty and L. R. Steed have never been improved. We never got a deed to the land; have never heard Mrs. Petty complain about the division, or claim the land. I built a house on L. R. Steed's portion, which I thought was on my own land, but she let me keep the improvements and five acres of her land. I paid taxes on my portion before I sold to Wm. Steed. When Wm. Steed went to North Texas, he left me in charge of his land, and had tenants on it. Wm. Steed and father returned to their old home in the spring of 1880; father died in 1882. He gave William and myself his homestead, which consisted of one hundred acres of land. After his death, his personal property was divided between Mrs. Petty, Mamie West and myself.

I can't say I ever saw Wm. Steed with the will. I don't know that he ever saw it or heard it read, but I saw it or knew its contents. It was understood that mother had given our sisters all her property. I never got any money from father's estate. Wm. Steed told me that father gave him $450. No lines were run on the land. A creek divides it east and west, and the division was by quarters.

W. M. Steed, the defendant, testified: The division of the land, etc., was made in January or February, 1870, as testified to by M. D. Steed. I was then twenty years old. L. R. Steed had first choice, I had next choice, Mrs. Petty third, and M. D. Steed last. Geo. Adair, who is now dead, acted for L. R. Steed, who was present. Before the division M. D. Steed went to Mrs. Petty's, but she didn't attend. Her husband was present. We took possession, made improvements, and I purchased M. D. Steed's tract, as testified to by him. Mrs. Petty and L. R. Steed knew of my purchase of M. D. Steed. I never heard any objection to the division, from either of my sisters, until after this suit. I never got a deed from either them or M. D. Steed. I took possession of the land because I thought it was mine, and cultivated it regularly up to March, 1879, when I went to North Texas. No possession of it, or rent, was ever demanded by either of my sisters. I claimed the land openly, and offered it for sale in the neighborhood. After the division, I paid taxes on fifty-five acres up to the time I bought M. D. Steed's interest, and since that time I have regularly paid taxes on the one hundred and ten acres claimed by me. L. R. Steed rendered and paid taxes on fifty-five acres. I never saw the will or heard it read until the first trial of this case, and, at the time of the division, I did not know there was a will, but knew that my sisters said mother had given them the land. When I went to North Texas, in March, 1879, I left M. D. Steed in charge of my land, and he and two others cultivated it as my tenants. After this I received a letter from M. D. Steed, which was the first news I had about the suit, and the first time I ever heard that my sisters set up any claim to the land. I returned to the place in the spring of 1880, and have since cultivated it. Father gave me and M. D. Steed his one hundred acres of land, after his death. We divided his personal property between M. D. Steed, Mrs. Petty, Mamie West, and myself. Sister L. R. Steed died without leaving any child, and we did not include plaintiff, Dupuy, in this division. Some two or three weeks before his death, father gave me $350. L. R. Steed married in the fall of 1879, and was twenty-four years old at the time. She and Mrs. Petty knew of my improving the land, and of my purchase of M. D. Steed's interest. B. M. Petty was on the land when I was clearing it.

B. M. Petty testified that there were about thirty-five acres of the land in a condition for cultivation, the annual rental value of which was about $5.00 per acre; that no part of the land was improved until M. D. and W. M. Steed improved it in 1870; that after 1870, he rendered for, and paid taxes on, for his wife, only fifty-five of the two hundred and twenty acres; that the portion of the land not claimed by W. M. Steed had never been improved; and that he had never demanded possession or rent of M. D. or W. M. Steed.

Mrs. Petty deposed that there was no agreement to divide the land, and that defendant knew of the will. She admitted that the cattle were divided, and said that she was present at that division and represented herself; and she and B. M. Petty, her husband, both testified that her brothers took possession of the land without their consent.

It appears that at the time of the alleged contract and partition between the brothers and their two sisters, one of the latter was a married woman and the other a minor about sixteen years old. The value of the improvements placed upon the land by the defendant, and him under whom he claimed, was shown to be about $450, and the annual use and occupation of the land to be worth about $175. It further appears that the defendant paid all the taxes on the land after its occupancy by him, and that the plaintiffs paid none.

The court refused the charges asked by the defendant, to the effect that, if defendant was a possessor in good faith, the jury should not assess rents for any improvements made on the land by him or M. D. Steed, and if neither the plaintiffs, nor any one for them, had paid the taxes on the land, and the defendant had regularly paid such taxes, they should assess nothing for its use and occupation; and, instead, it charged the jury that if the defendant was a possessor of the land in good faith, and he and those under whom he claimed had made thereon valuable and permanent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Crews v. General Crude Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 19, 1955
    ...Tex. 131, at page 135, 33 S.W. 849; Johnson v. Bryan, 62 Tex. 623; Fitzgerald v. Turner, 43 Tex. 79; Berry v. Donley, 26 Tex. 737; Steed v. Petty, 65 Tex. 490; Cole v. Bammel, 62 Tex. 108, at page 115 et seq., on motion for rehearing. The matter of abandonment which may occur in the case of......
  • Yusko v. Studt
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1917
    ... ... former and his declaration. Dickerson v. Colgrove, ... 100 U.S. 578, 25 L.Ed. 618; Steed v. Petty, 65 Tex ... 490; Hodge v. Ludlum, 45 Minn. 290, 47 N.W. 805 ...          A ... representation to create and amount to an ... ...
  • Champlin Oil & Refining Co. v. Chastain
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1965
    ...246 S.W. 1083 (Tex.Civ.App.1922) aff'd (Tex.Com.App.), 269 S.W. 75, 39 A.L.R. 1247, on rehearing 272 S.W. 440, 39 A.L.R. 1247; Steed v. Petty, 65 Tex. 490 (1886); Blum v. Merchant, 58 Tex. 400 (1883); Hunt v. W.O.W. Life Ins. Co. Soc., Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W.2d 857 (1941), writ ref.; Booth F......
  • Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Wilkes
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 1919
    ...or the other, the admission defeating one and not the other, under the rule defendant did not secure the right to open and close. Steed v. Petty, 65 Tex. 490; Sanders v. Bridges, 67 Tex. 93, 2 S. W. 663; Insurance Co. v. Simpson, 28 S. W. 837. It appears to be appellee's view that the state......
  • 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