Estes v. Reding, 5668
| Decision Date | 01 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 5668,5668 |
| Citation | 377 S.W.2d 233 |
| Parties | Carl D. ESTES, Sr., Appellant, v. Gid REDING, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ed Keys, Monahans, for appellant.
Johnson & Dionne, Fort Stockton, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the appellee.
Suit was filed by appellee against appellant for a declaratory judgment involving a claim asserted by appellant to certain mineral rights, and to declare void a purported deed to certain lands and mineral interests, apparently dated May 20, 1953, but acknowledged March 26, 1953, from appellee as grantor to appellant as grantee and filed of record on April 1, 1963.
After granting appellee's motion for summary judgment and at the request of the appellant, the trial court made certain 'Findings of Fact'. Such findings by the trial court are unnecessary in disposing of a motion for summary judgment, as they are only appropriate in deciding issues of fact. In granting a motion for summary judgment the court merely rules that there are no material issues of fact. Wright v. Bida, 359 S.W.2d 661 (), and cases there cited; and all doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue as to any material fact must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment. Sullivan v. Sisters of St. Francis of Texas, 374 S.W.2d 294 (), citing numerous authorities. On appeal the duty of the reviewing court, where motion for summary judgment has been granted, is to determine if there are any issues of fact to be tried, and if the evidence raises any issues of fact to be tried by a court or jury a summary judgment is not proper. Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, 374 S.W.2d 662 (S.Ct., 1964).
Relative to the purported deed mentioned above from appellee to appellant which appellee sought to have the trial court declare void, the trial court made the following findings of fact:
'4. I find that in connection with the second oral contract between Gid Reding and Carl D. Estes, Sr., Gid Reding signed his name to an instrument conveying to Carl D. Estes (Sr.) the surface of Tract 5 and an undivided 1/9 of the minerals in Section 36, which instrument is dated May 20, 1953 and purports to have been acknowledged March 26, 1953, and which is attached to the deposition of Carl D. Estes, Sr. as Exhibit 11.
(Emphasis supplied).
We find ourselves laboring under what must have been the same confusion of the trial court when he found that this instrument was 'given by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Young
...cite Younge v. Guilbeau, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 636, 18 L.Ed. 262 (1865); Dikes v. Miller, 24 Tex. 417 (1859); Estes v. Reding, 377 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.Civ.App.El Paso 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Johnson v. Freytag, 338 S.W.2d 257 ( Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Steffian v. Milmo Nat......
-
City of Grand Prairie v. City of Irving, 17264
...Kellum v. Pacific National Fire Ins. Co., 360 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1962, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Estes v. Reding, 377 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.). It is well established that the State of Texas, under the conditions here present, may require the owner ......
-
Estes v. Reding
...from a summary judgment in favor of Reding, and this court reversed because of fact questions concerning delivery of the deed. (Estes v. Reding, 377 S.W.2d 233). It is now before us after trial before a jury, and we are of the opinion that the findings of the jury as to delivery support the......
-
Majestic Bldg. Corp. v. McClelland
...the circumstances of delivery, the issue cannot be determined by summary judgment proceedings. Estes v. Reding, 377 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1964, writ ref'd n. r. e.). The McClellands contend that the question of the sufficiency of the facts necessary to constitute acceptance of a ......