Whitmire v. May
| Decision Date | 05 March 1903 |
| Citation | 72 S.W. 375 |
| Parties | WHITMIRE v. MAY et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by P. C. Whitmire against Sallie May and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (69 S. W. 100), plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
M. T. Conner and Plowman & Baker, for plaintiff in error. Harry P. Lawther, for defendants in error.
On the 1st day of February, 1897, one F. H. Doran sold to one J. D. Pippin the tract of land, the half of which is in controversy in this suit. Pippin paid $625 in cash, and executed to Doran five promissory notes, of $100 each, maturing at different dates, as a consideration for the land. Doran's deed reserved a lien for the unpaid purchase money, and at the same time Pippin executed a deed of trust which empowered the trustee, W. H. Lewis, to sell the property for the payment of the notes in case of default. On February 13, 1897, Pippin, for a recited consideration of $312.50 in cash, and the assumption of the payment of one-half of the purchase-money notes, conveyed to his wife, Jennie E. Pippin, an undivided one-half interest in the land. Mrs. Pippin did not pay the $312.50 as recited in the deed. She lived upon the land as her homestead until she died, in April, 1900. She left surviving her two children by a former husband. At the time of her death, her husband had disappeared, and whether he was living or dead was not known. The defendant R. H. Powell became administrator upon her estate, and rented the premises in controversy to defendant Sallie May. Doran transferred the notes to Mrs. E. E. Waller, and, default having been made, the trustee, in pursuance of the power conferred by the deed in trust, after the death of Mrs. Pippin, and after administration upon her estate, sold the property, and Mrs. Waller became the purchaser at the sale. Subsequently she conveyed it to the plaintiff, P. C. Whitmire. Whitmire brought suit against Sallie May, the tenant in possession, to recover the property; and her landlord, Powell, as administrator of the estate of Mrs. Pippin, appeared and defended the suit. The judgment was for the defendant, and on appeal it was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that the case was ruled by the decision in Buchanan v. Monroe, 22 Tex. 537. There it was decided that where a mortgagor has sold the mortgaged premises, and the purchaser has died before foreclosure, the power of sale given in the mortgage is revoked, so long as an administration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corpus Christi-Edinburg Daimlerchrysler Corporation v. Inman
...I. & T. R. Co. v. Halsell, 83 S.W. 15, 15 (Tex. 1904) (same), Giddings v. Fischer, 77 S.W. 209, 211 (Tex. 1903) (same); Whitmire v. May, 72 S.W. 375, 376 (Tex. 1903) (same), and Colquitt-Tigner Min. Co. v. Rogan, 68 S.W. 154, 155 (Tex. 1902) 5. Although federal jurisprudence on standing may......
-
Wiener v. Zweib
...administration would be had or not. That case has, however, not met with approval in later cases, and in the case of Whitmire v. May, 96 Tex. 317, 72 S. W. 375, the rule was followed with reluctance, even when administration was pending when the sale was made, and it was construed to mean t......
-
Tyson v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.
...Tex. 228; Cannon v. McDaniel, 46 Tex. 303; Rogers v. Kennard, 54 Tex. 30; Smithwick v. Kelly, 79 Tex. 564, 15 S. W. 486; Whitmire v. May, 96 Tex. 317, 72 S. W. 375, 376; Lauraine v. Ashe, 109 Tex. 69, 191 S. W. 563, 196 S. W. 501; Gregory v. Ward, 118 Tex. 526, 18 S.W.(2d) 1049; Byers v. Mc......
-
Tanton v. State Nat. Bank of El Paso
...cited. It announced a property rule. In this connection we quote the distinguished Chief Justice Gaines again. In Whitmire v. May, 96 Tex. 317, 72 S. W. 375, he "The Court of Civil Appeals held that the case was ruled by the decision in Buchanan v. Monroe, 22 Tex. 537. There it was decided ......