Taylor v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 24 April 1883
• Docket Number: Case No. 4739.
• Citation: Taylor v. Campbell, 59 Tex. 315 (Tex. 1883)
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: H. E. TAYLOR v. W. L. CAMPBELL, EX'R, ETC.

59 Tex. 315

H. E. TAYLOR

v.W. L. CAMPBELL, EX'R, ETC.

Case No. 4739.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Apr. 24, 1883.

APPEAL from Collin. Tried below before the Hon. Joseph Bledsoe.

Taylor brought this suit for specific performance of a written contract between appellee's testate, Jacob Ruth, and Howell & Ragsdale, dated June 8, 1857, alleging that in consideration of Howell & Ragdale having located and paid the expenses of the survey and location of a specified six hundred and forty acres of land by virtue of certificate issued to Wm. M. Williams, and the further consideration of procuring the patents and paying the expenses thereof, Ruth bound himself to convey to Howell & Ragsdale, as soon as patents could be obtained, one hundred and sixty acres of the land, and charged that Howell & Ragsdale performed their part of the agreement, located surveys, paid the expenses and procured the patents to issue to Jacob Ruth, appellee's testate, on the 26th day of June, 1861, and that he was the legal and equitable owner and holder of the contract and land by regular chain of transfer from Howell & Ragsdale down to himself, for a valuable consideration paid, and that Ruth afterwards died.

He further charged that Ruth, in his life-time, and his executor since his death, had failed and refused to execute to Howell & Ragsdale or their assigns a deed in compliance with his agreement, etc.

It was agreed, in the manner stated in the opinion, that Jacob Ruth and Howell & Ragsdale entered into a written agreement as alleged in petition; that Howell & Ragsdale located and surveyed the land, returned the field notes to the general land office, and performed their agreement, except procuring patents and delivering them to Jacob Ruth; that the lands were patented by virtue of their location and survey June 26, 1861, and that there was a regular and legal chain of title thereto from Howell & Ragsdale down to H. E. Taylor, bearing date prior to the institution of this suit.

Throckmorton & Brown, for appellant, cited Hemming v. Zimmerschitte, 4 Tex., 166;Gibbons v. Bell, 45 Tex., 424;Reed v. West, 47 Tex., 248;Bell v. Warren, 39 Tex., 110.

R. R. Craig, for appellee.

STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

This action was brought for the specific performance of a contract to convey land, alleged to have been made between Howell & Ragsdale and Jacob Ruth on the 8th day of June, 1857. The appellant claims as the assignee of Howell & Ragsdale. Among other defenses the defendant pleaded a general denial, which imposed upon the appellant the necessity of proving his case. The cause was tried without a jury, and, as the judgment shows, upon the evidence.

There is in the transcript an agreement, signed by counsel for the respective parties, of facts which it was agreed might be offered in evidence; but there is nothing to show that this agreement was offered in evidence on the trial of the cause, and it does not purport to be a statement of the facts signed by counsel and...