"Findings of Fact.
"(1) The land in controversy was conveyed to Isaac Allen by deed in ordinary form on February 4, 1847.
"(2) Allen had at the time a wife, who was the mother, by him, of three children, Sallie, Mary, and John.
"(3) Something like a year after his death his widow married one Henry Vinsen or Vincent, and of that marriage was born the plaintiff in this case, and she was, when this suit was brought, approximately 60 years old.
"(4) Plaintiff's mother died when she was about two years old, and her father has been dead since 1899.
"(5) Her brother, John Allen, died when about 16 years old, after his mother died.
"(6) The plaintiff offered no evidence on the question of purchase in good faith by defendants to meet such defense, as against the unregistered claim of right of plaintiff as heir of her mother; but defendants assumed that burden and introduced testimony to the effect that they had bought in good faith, knowing nothing of any claim by any person, and without ever having heard of plaintiff. They also proved payment of taxes for many years, and Mrs. Smith and Mrs. McKay proved long possession.
"(7) All the evidence of plaintiff and her witnesses as to heirship was more or less vague as to dates of deaths and marriages, and was based on family history and tradition, and was, to some extent, contradictory and of doubtful sufficiency to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, and, did I take a different view of the law, I should hesitate to hold it sufficient; but for the purpose of these findings and conclusions it may be so treated.
"(8) Before purchasing the 10-acre lot, some of the grantors on the claim of title procured from one of the leading law firms of this city an opinion upon it, in the course of which they passed upon the affidavit of heirship. The opinion of Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, in so far as it referred to the question of heirship of Mrs. Ballou and Mrs. Dell, was as follows: `November 22, 1873, J. A. Ballou and wife, Mary S. Ballou, and P. W. Dell and wife, Sallie E. Dell, conveyed to J. W. Cook said 10-acre lot No. 87 in the Holman survey. There is nothing in the abstract to show where the grantor in this instrument procured any interest in the property in question, further than the affidavit of J. H. Muldrow, on page 4 of the abstract, to the effect that Mrs. Ballou and Mrs. Dell were the sole heirs of Isaac Allen at the time of the execution of this instrument. Whether or not the facts as reflected in said affidavit are true, it is a question of fact about which we know nothing. However, for all practicable purposes, we would say that this affidavit is sufficient.' In concluding the opinion the attorneys said: `If it be true that J. A. Ballou et al. joining in the deed to J. W. Cook were the sole heirs at law of Isaac Allen, as claimed, then it would appear from the abstract that J. W. Cook, Jr., has a good title to the property in question.' The affidavit read as follows:
"`The State of Texas, Fort Bend County:
"`Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared J. H. Muldrow, known to me, who being duly sworn deposes and says: That he was well acquainted with Isaac Allen. He departed this life about the year 1852 in don't know what county, Texas, and from an intimate acquaintance with his family and family relations for many years prior thereto he [the affiant] has good reason to believe and verily does believe that at the time of his death the said Isaac Allen left surviving him three children, to wit, Mariah (or Mary), who afterwards married one J. A. Barlow, Sarah (or Sallie), who afterwards married P. W. Dell, and a son, John, who died at the age of 16 years, about the year 1860. J. H. Muldrow, J. M. Cassil, Justice of the Peace and Ex Officio Notary Public in and for Fort Bend County, Texas. [Seal.]'
"(9) There was nothing on the face of the deed to show that any person had any interest in the property when the deed was made to Isaac S. Allen.
"Upon these findings of fact I base the following:
"Conclusions of Law.
"(1) I hold that the defendants McKay and Smith have proved title by limitation, and hence should have judgment.
"(2) The authorities seem to hold that, where the plaintiff's title rests on an unregistered equity claimed by inheritance as against those claiming as innocent purchasers, the burden is on him or her to prove notice on the part of defendant. This plaintiff did not undertake to do; and hence, on the ground of such failure, the court would be authorized to render judgment for defendants, but there are other grounds controlling this decision.
"(3) This case seems to me to be radically different from the case of Ross v. Morrow [85 Tex. 172, 19 S. W. 1090, 16 L. R. A. 542] and Hill v. Moore [85 Tex. 335, 19 S. W. 162], and from N. Y. & Texas Land Co. v. Highland [8 Tex. Civ. App. 601, 28 S. W. 206], but seems to me to be in line with the case of Gilmer v. Veatch, 102 Tex. 384 .
"(4) The affidavit of heirship on which those through whom defendants' claim relied
and which they were advised was, for all practical purposes, sufficient, seems to me to have been sufficient to justify the purchase, and that a purchase made upon such advice and opinion was in legal effect a purchase in good faith, which is a mixed question of law and fact.
"(5) The legal title having vested in Isaac Allen by the deed of February 4, 1847, it descended upon his death, by inheritance, to his children, Mary, Sallie, and John. The plaintiff was in no sense an heir of Isaac Allen, but was the heir of her mother, whose right in the property was an unregistered equity, which she had by virtue of having been a member of the community marital partnership of Isaac Allen and herself.
"(6) In Gilmer v. Veatch the Supreme Court held that the fact that the younger Veatch conveyed as the heir of his father was not sufficient to put any party dealing with him upon notice or inquiry that his mother may have had an interest, or that she may have been living or have been married to his father when he (the father) received a deed to the land, because that was, the court said, `pushing the doctrine of notice too far.'
"(7) If this is the law, then certainly, under the facts of this case, there is nothing shown that could possibly have put anybody on notice that Mrs. Allen had remarried and had other children, or another child.
"(8) ...
