Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Vaughan

Decision Date26 May 1934
Docket NumberNo. 11431.,11431.
PartiesTEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. VAUGHAN et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Towne Young, Judge.

Suit by H. F. Vaughan and others against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and named defendant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, of Dallas, for appellant.

Coker, Rhea & Vickrey, of Dallas, and Travis E. Baker, of San Angelo, for appellees.

JONES, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted in a district court of Dallas county by H. F. Vaughan, Thomas Bowles, and A. D. Bell, as plaintiffs, against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, Nan Malone, and the unknown heirs of Nan Malone, Betty Phaup, and the unknown heirs of Betty Phaup, Sarah Smith, and the unknown heirs of Sarah Smith, as defendants, to recover title to and possession of a small tract of real estate described in the petition as a part of what is known as the old Texas & Pacific depot grounds in the city of Dallas. All of the defendants, except the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, were duly cited by publication, and an attorney was appointed by the court to represent them. The plaintiffs in the suit and the defendants cited by publication are the admitted owners of the land in question, provided the hereinafter quoted instrument did not divest Thomas Bowles and Sue Bowles, deceased husband and wife, of their title to the land. Judgment was entered in favor of appellees, declaring the interest in the land of each of the plaintiffs and the defendants cited by publication, and divesting the Texas & Pacific Railway Company of any interest or title therein.

The instrument of conveyance, under which all parties claim title, and under a construction of which the court entered judgment, is:

"That we, Thomas Bowles and Sue Bowles, his wife, of the County of Dallas, in the State aforesaid, in consideration of the sum of Four Hundred and Fifty Gold Dollars, to us paid by Adams & Leonard, J. W. Downer and other contributions as per list filed, of the County of Dallas, State of Texas, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have bargained, sold and released and by these presents so grant, bargain, sell and release unto the Texas & Pacific Railroad Company, for depot ground in the City of Dallas, all that tract of land described as follows: Beginning at the East corner of an acre of ground sold by John J. Good and wife to Terrell Martin, a negro man; Thence N. 42½ W. with the N. E. line of said acre 100 ft.; Thence S. 45 W. parallel to Swiss Street 104½ ft.; Thence S. 42½ E. 100 ft.; Thence N. 45 E. with the S. E. line of said acre 104½ ft. to the beginning, the same being the East portion of said acre hereby conveyed to said Texas & Pacific Railroad Co. to be permanently used for depot purposes, in the City of Dallas, such as warehouses, passenger platforms, yd. switches, turnout or whatever pertains to a railroad depot, together with all and singular the rights, members, hereditaments and appurtenances to the same belonging or in anywise incident or appertaining.

"To have and to hold all and singular the premises above mentioned unto the said Texas & Pacific R. R. Co., their heirs and assigns forever. And we do hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said premises unto the said T. & P. R. R. Co., their heirs and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Brown v. Weare
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 18, 1941
    ... ... A. (N. S.) 762; State v. Griffith, 342 Mo ... 229, 114 S.W.2d 976; Askew v. Vicksburg S. & P. Ry ... Co., 171 La. 947, 132 So. 510; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co ... v. Martin, 123 Tex. 383, 71 S.W.2d 867; Texas & Pac ... Ry. Co. v. Vaughan, 73 S.W.2d 632; Morgan v. C. & A ... Railroad ... ...
  • Carter Oil Co. v. Welker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois
    • October 13, 1938
    ...in Gilbert v. Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co., 185 F. 102; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 123 Tex. 383, 71 S.W.2d 867; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Vaughan, Tex.Civ.App., 73 S.W.2d 632; Phillips v. M. K. T. Ry. Co., D.C., 20 F.Supp. 498; Gates v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., D.C., 13 F.Supp. 466; Killgore v. Cabe......
  • Midkiff v. Castle & Cooke, Inc., 4118
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1962
    ...New York Cent. & H. R. R., 149 App.Div. 739, 134 N.Y.S. 191; Stinson v. Oklahoma Ry., 190 Okl. 624, 126 P.2d 260; Texas & P. Ry. v. Vaughan, 73 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Civ.App.1934); Texas & P. Ry. v. Martin, 123 Tex. 383, 71 S.W.2d 867; Killgore v. Cabell County Court, 80 W.Va. 283, 92 S.E. 562, L......
  • Robb v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1315
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1960
    ...expressed condition here.' See also Frederic v. Merchants & Marine Bank, 1947, 200 Miss. 755, 28 So.2d 843 and Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Vaughan, Tex.Civ.App.1934, 73 S.W.2d 632, 633. Forfeitures and conditions are not favored in the law and to be effective must be clearly expressed. In Dade Co......

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