Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Vaughan
Decision Date | 26 May 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 11431.,11431. |
Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. VAUGHAN et al. |
Court | Texas 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.
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Weare
... ... 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
...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
...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
...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......