Texas Loan Agency v. Miller

• Decision Date: 01 April 1901
• Citation: 61 S.W. 477
• Parties: TEXAS LOAN AGENCY et al. v. MILLER et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 477

61 S.W. 477

TEXAS LOAN AGENCY et al. v. MILLER et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 1, 1901.

Error to court of civil appeals of Fifth supreme judicial district.

Action by Mary Miller and others against the Texas Loan Agency and others. There was judgment in the court of civil appeals reversing a judgment in defendants' favor, and they bring error. Reversed.

McKie & Autry and Frost, Neblett & Blanding, for plaintiffs in error. Ballew & Ballew, for defendants in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

The defendants in error, who were plaintiffs in the district court, claimed the land in controversy as heirs of Jane Beauchamp; and plaintiffs in error, defendants below, claimed it through mesne conveyances under a deed executed by William T. Charles as attorney in fact for Jane Beauchamp. The decisive question in the case is whether or not the power under which Charles acted authorized the conveyance made by him. The power of attorney was executed January 3, 1847, and the conveyance under it was made by the attorney in fact December 1, 1850. The only facts shown by the evidence as existing when the power was executed were that Jane Beauchamp was a widow, who could neither read nor write, living in Fayette county near her oldest son, William T. Charles, the donee of the power, and that she owned horses, cattle, and lands,—the latter situated in different counties, among which was that in controversy, inherited by her from a deceased son. The power of attorney thus stated the authority given: "For me and in my name to buy and sell lands, goods, and chattels, to receipt for me and in my name, and to transact all business necessary in the transaction of my affairs. And I, Jane Beauchamp, do hereby empower the said Charles, as my attorney in fact, to sign my name as my attorney, and I do further bind and confirm all the acts of said Charles as may be necessary and legal as my attorney in fact, hereby acknowledging every act or acts of said Charles as my attorney in fact as binding on me as if the same were done by me personally, hereby binding my heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns to regard the act or acts of said Charles, as my attorney in fact, as binding as if executed by me, Jane Beauchamp, in my proper person." The land in controversy was sold and conveyed by the attorney in fact to James W. Scott for a money consideration, and his deed was recorded in 1851; and the mesne conveyances down to defendants were made at various times from 1854 until 1874, and recorded in due time. There have been actual possession of and improvements and payment of taxes upon the land under this title since 1868. Jane Beauchamp lived until 1866 or 1867, and William T. Charles until 1868, and the latter acted as the general agent of his mother; and, besides the sale of the land in question, the record states that "he appropriated all of the Jane Beauchamp estates in his lifetime." There is no evidence that Jane Beauchamp ever asserted claim to the land after the sale of it, and none that she received the purchase money, unless the fact may be inferred from the circumstances stated. The district court held that the power of attorney was sufficient to authorize the sale and conveyance of the land, and gave judgment for defendants; but the court of civil appeals reversed this judgment, and adjudged to one of the plaintiffs, who was not barred, the interest inherited by her from her ancestors. We think this was error. The power of attorney...