Thaxton v. Smith

• Decision Date: 02 December 1896
• Citation: 38 S.W. 820
• Parties: THAXTON et al. v. SMITH.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

38 S.W. 820

THAXTON et al. v. SMITH.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

December 2, 1896.

Appeal from district court, McCulloch county; J. O. Woodward, Judge.

Action by Calvin Thaxton and others against Temple D. Smith. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This is a suit by appellant Calvin Thaxton, as trustee of a certain deed of trust executed by C. Crosby for the benefit of certain named creditors, conveying the lands in controversy for the purpose of securing the debts mentioned in the deed of trust. The deed of trust secured a number of debts, and named a number of beneficiaries, and two of them (L. F. Kneese and Louis Priess) are joined with Thaxton in this suit. The purpose of the suit is to cancel a certain title acquired by appellee, Smith, in the lands in controversy, by sheriff's sale, under a judgment in favor of Smith against C. Crosby, and to remove same as a cloud on the title of Thaxton and the beneficiaries accepting the terms of said deed of trust, and to let in the said Thaxton to the administration of said property as trustee under and by virtue of the terms of said deed of trust. The case was tried before the court, without a jury, and it rendered the following judgment: "It is considered by the court that plaintiff Calvin Thaxton is not entitled to recover; that plaintiffs L. Kneese and Louis Priess have a lien on the lands described in plaintiffs' petition for their debt of third class, described in trust deed from C. Crosby to J. A. Gamel, but, not having asked for foreclosure of same, are not entitled to recover. Wherefore it is adjudged that plaintiffs, Calvin Thaxton, trustee, L. Kneese, and Louis Priess, take nothing by this suit, and that defendant, Temple D. Smith, do have and recover of them all costs in this behalf expended. It is further ordered that this judgment is made without prejudice to plaintiffs L. Kneese and Louis Priess' rights to hereafter have said lien foreclosed."

We set out all the facts shown by the record, and, as there is no controversy about the facts, we deem it unnecessary to find conclusions from them. The conclusions of fact upon which we dispose of the case are made apparent in our legal conclusions.

"First. Deed of trust by C. Crosby to J. A. Gamel, as follows:

"`The State of Texas, County of Mason. Know all men by these presents, that I, C. Crosby, of the county and state aforesaid, for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars, to me in hand paid by J. A. Gamel, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have this day and do by these presents grant, bargain, sell, and convey unto the said J. A. Gamel, of the county of Mason and state aforesaid, his heirs and assigns, forever, all of the following mentioned and described real estate and personal property, lying and being situate in the county of Mason, Texas, as follows, to wit: (1) Abst. No. 559; survey No. 77; grantee, Louise Keyser; No. of acres, 320; value, 560$. (2) Abst. No. 560; survey No. 78; grantee, Louise Keyser; No. of acres, 320; value, 560$. (3) Abst. No. 1,578; survey No. 951; grantee, Chas. Woocher; No. of acres, 80; value, 140$. (4) Abst. No. 1,491; survey No. 6; grantee, C. Crosby; No. of acres, 80; value, 393$. (5) Abst. No. 371; survey No. 483; grantee, J. F. A. Giesecke; acres, 100; value, 1,200$. (6) Abst. No. 1,049; survey No. 93; grantee, G. W. Brooks; 327 acres; value, 591$. (7) Abst. No. 359; survey 55; grantee, Wm. Gerhard; acres, 320; value, 560$. (8) Abst. No. 429; survey No. 61; grantee, Geo. Heinrich; acres, 320; value, 560$. (9) Abst. No. 800; survey No. 833; grantee, Sebastian Reh; acres, 376; value, 658$. (10) Abst. No. 837; survey No. 482; grantee, C. Schuler; No. of acres, 216; value, 378-. (11) Abst. 838, survey No. 826; grantee, W. Schmidt; acres, 43; 75$. (12) Abst. 839; survey No. 824; grantee, W. Schmidt; acres, 276; value, 483$. (13) Abst. No. 860; survey No. 93; grantee, H. Salge; acres, 160; value, 280$. (14) Abst. No. 861; survey No. 92; grantee, H. Salge; acres, 160; value, 280$. (15) Abst. No. 862; survey ___ 57; grantee, John Schmidt; acres, 160; value, 280$. (16) Abst. No. 801; survey No. 834; grantee, Sebastian Reh; acres, 264; value, 462$. (17) Abst. No. 1,055; survey No. 55; grantee, Brooks and Burleson; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (18) Abst. 1,600; _____; grantee, E. J. McCowing; acres, 731; value, 1,279$. (19) Abst. No. 304; survey No. 304; grantee, C. Fortemps; acres, 320; value, 560$. (20) Abst. No. 230; survey No. 26; grantee, heirs of H. Erbe; acres, 320; value, 560$. (21) Abst. No. 331; survey No. 27; grantee, heirs of H. Erbe; acres, 320; value, 560$. (22) Abst. No. 862; survey No. 58; grantee, John Schmidt; acres, 160; value, 280$. (23) Abst. No. 864; survey No. 59; grantee, John Schmidt; acres, 160; value, 280$. (24) Abst. No. 865; survey No. 60; grantee, John Schmidt; acres, 160; value, 280$. (25) Abst. No. 922; survey No. 821; grantee, F. Von Doering; acres, 160; value, 280$. (26) Abst. No. 395; survey No. 822; grantee, Jos. Heimann; acres, 160; value, 280$. (27) Abst. 1,337; survey No. 194; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 426; value, 746$. (28) Abst. 1,335; survey No. 302; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (29) Abst. No. 1,331; survey No. 56; grantee, C. Crosby; 640 acres; value, 1,120$. (30) Abst. No. 1,334; survey 938; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 480; value, 840$. (31) Abst. 1,338; survey No. 944; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (32) Abst. No. 1,339; survey 946; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (33) Abst. No. 1,336; survey No. 44; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 320; value, 560$. (34) Abst. No. 328; survey No. 86; grantee, M. Greenwelge; acres, 86; value, 2,500$. (35) Abst. No. 369; survey No. 482; grantee, G. Giesecke; acres, 20; value, 35$. (36) Abst. No. 438; survey No. 89; grantee, Carl Huebner; acres, 213; value, 372$. (37) Abst. No. 439; survey No. 88; grantee, Carl Huebner; acres, 213; value, 372$. (38) Abst. No. 468; survey No. 943; grantee, H. & G. N. R. R. Co.; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (39) Abst. No. 797; survey No. 478; grantee, Ed. Rumpf; acres, 160; value, 280$. (40) Abst. No. 104; survey No. 64; grantee, Conrad Bletz; acres, 320; value, 560$. (41) Abst. No. 1,395; survey No. 190; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 160; value, 280$. (42) Abst. 469; survey 945; grantee, H. & G. N. R. R. Co.; 640 acres; value, 1,120$. (43) Abst. 1,492; survey No. 7; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 84; value, 147$. (44) Abst. No. 42; survey No. 89; grantee, A. B. & M.; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (45) Abst. 49; survey No. 193; grantee, A. B. & M.; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (46) Abst. 799; survey No. 471; grantee, J. M. Reinarz; acres, 320; value, 560$. (47) Abst. No. 1,266; survey No. 477; grantee, J. M. Reinarz; acres, 320; value, 560$. (48) Abst. No. 198; survey No. 73; grantee, heirs of H. Deichert; acres, 320; value, 560$. (49) Abst. No. _____; survey No. 825; grantee, Seth Parker; acres, 272; value, 476$. (50) Abst. No. _____; survey No. 823; grantee, Seth Parker; acres, 47; value, 82$. (51) Abst. No. 129; survey No. 472; grantee, H. Brandt; acres, 160; value, 280$. (52) Abst. 130; survey 28; grantee, A. Bolender; acres, 320; value, 560$. (53) Abst. 178; survey No. 89; grantee, C. Irr. Co.; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (54) Abst. 180; survey 119; grantee, C. Irr. Co.; acres, 337; value, 590$. (55) Abst. 316; survey 417; Fisher & Miller; all of this survey, except that part now owned by Thos. Park, and that part heretofore sold by me to Wm. Koock, and about two acres occupied by the Crosby graveyard, and two hundred acres, the homestead of C. Crosby and family, so that of this survey here conveyed there is about 375 acres conveyed; the homestead out of this survey reserved & not conveyed in this deed is as follows: Two hundred acres of land, beginning at the southwest corner of the Crosby field fence, west of the Crosby mansion house, about _____ vrs.; thence north, to the first or south bank of the west prong of Comanche creek; thence east, along the south bank of said west prong of Comanche creek, to the northeast corner of the Crosby field fence, same being the rock fence, around the field; thence east, along the pasture fence, on the bank of said creek, to the east boundary line of said survey No. 417; thence south, to the southeast corner of this survey No. 417; thence west, along the south B. line of said survey 417, to the S. W. corner of the Crosby pasture fence, the Mason and Brady road; thence north, along the Mason & Brady road, on the east side of said road, to the rock fence, same being the rock fence on the south line of the Crosby field; thence west, with the said field fence, to the S. W. corner of said field, the place of beginning,—containing two hundred acres of land, _____ acres of this survey, here conveyed at 275 acres, of the value of about 2,000$. (56) Abst. No. 741; survey 29; grantee, F. Pepper; acres, 320; value, 640$. (57) Abst. No. 893; survey 477; grantee, J. J. Schmidt; acres, 400; value, 700$. (58) Abst. 967; survey 743; grantee, Henry Welge; acres, 480; value, 44,000$. (59) Abst. 1,006; survey 121; grantee, V. A. & M. C.; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (60) Abst. 35; survey No. 947; grantee, A. C. B. & B.; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (61) Abst. No. 1,203; survey No. 83; grantee, C. Crosby; acres, 480; value, 840$. (62) Abst. 1,471; survey No. 5; grantee, A. Baker; acres, 617; value, 1,079$. (63) Abst. No. 1,267; survey No. 927; grantee, A. Richner; acres, 160; value, 280$. (64) Abst. 1,207; survey No. 28; grantee, John Davis; acres, 640; value, 1,120$. (65) Also any and all other lands owned by me in Mason county, Texas, wherever situated in said county, except the homestead herein mentioned. (66) Also any and all my lands lying and being situate in McCulloch county, Texas, being lands on and near the San Saba river, on the north of said county. For a full and complete description of the lands mentioned in the tracts from 1 to 64, inclusive,...