Yett v. Houston Farms Development Co., 9560.
Decision Date | 24 June 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 9560.,9560. |
Citation | 41 S.W.2d 305 |
Parties | YETT v. HOUSTON FARMS DEVELOPMENT CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; C. G. Dibrell, Judge.
Suit by the Houston Farms Development Company and others against Richard Yett, receiver of Turnbow Oil Corporation, and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant named appeals.
Affirmed.
Howth, Adams & Hart, of Beaumont, W T. Williams and W. T. Williams, Jr., both of Austin, and Ralph Durham, of Beaumont, for appellant.
Williams, Neethe & Williams, of Galveston, and Vinson, Elkins, Sweeton & Weems, and Fred R. Switzer, all of Houston, for appellees.
This suit was brought by Houston Farms Development Company, successor in title of T. Martin's estate, against numerous individuals and against the known and unknown stockholders of the Turnbow Oil Corporation and the Turnbow Production Company.
The petition was in the usual form of petitions in suits of trespass to try title. The purpose of the suit was to try title to certain described 5,737 acres of land situated in Galveston county, a part of 36,000 acres formerly conveyed by T. W. Davis, independent executor of the estate of T. Martin, and Aline Martin, widow of T. Martin, to W. C. Turnbow in January, 1919, and which was later reconveyed by Turnbow and wife to T. W. Davis, executor, in consideration of the cancellation of the unpaid purchase-money notes and other obligations executed and assumed by W. C. Turnbow moving his vendors to convey said lands to him.
After this suit was filed, one Richard Yett was appointed receiver for the Turnbow Oil Corporation, and he made answer in the suit as a defendant and disclaimed as to all interest in the 5,737 acres, except as to seven-eighths of the minerals, which had been conveyed by W. C. Turnbow to the Turnbow Oil Corporation prior to the reconveyance by Turnbow to Davis, executor. As to said seven-eighths of the minerals, such receiver alleged that the Turnbow Oil Corporation had acquired its title thereto in the following manner:
First. By deed from the executor of the estate of T. Martin and his widow to W. C. Turnbow of date January 2, 1919, by which such parties conveyed to Turnbow the 5,737 acres of land involved in this suit, together with other lands, for a consideration of $537,783.30, payable by the assumption by Turnbow of certain vendor's liens existing against the lands, amounting to about $185,000, and the execution by him of eleven vendor's lien notes, aggregating the sum of $325,707.
Second. By a deed from W. C. Turnbow to Turnbow Oil Corporation of date January 27, 1920, whereby the said seven-eighths of the minerals upon and under the land was conveyed to the Turnbow Oil Corporation, it being expressly stated in such deed that one-eighth of such minerals was reserved to the grantee.
Pleading further, the receiver alleged:
That "on the 14th day of March, 1922, W. C. Turnbow, being unable to meet his obligations to the Martin Estate and unable to pay the notes representing the balance of the purchase price of the said land, entered into an agreement with the representatives of the Martin Estate to reconvey the lands by quit-claim deed, conditioned upon the cancellation and surrender of the remaining unpaid vendor's lien notes executed by W. C. Turnbow to the estate, and this agreement was carried into effect by W. C. Turnbow and wife conveying, on the 14th day of March, 1922, to the executor of the Martin Estate, the lands and premises covered by the deed from said estate to Turnbow above described, and in this deed of reconveyance it is expressly stated that the consideration was the cancellation and surrender of the remaining unpaid vendor's lien notes executed by W. C. Turnbow to T. W. Davis, executor of the Martin Estate, and described in the deed to W. C. Turnbow from T. W. Davis, executor, dated January 2, 1919, and further expressly describing the notes and also expressly stating a further consideration of the cancellation of all indebtedness due by W. C. Turnbow to T. W. Davis, executor of the estate under certain other instruments.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Copeland v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
...Darby, 133 Tex. 593, 131 S.W.2d 95. We also think the case at bar is clearly distinguishable from the case of Yett v. Houston Farms Development Co., Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 305, which case appellants rely on to support their claim of rescission. In the Yett case there was an understanding t......
-
Cooper v. First State Bank of Chilton
...S.W. 482; R. B. Spencer & Co. v. May, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 665; McDonald v. Miller, 90 Tex. 309, 39 S.W. 89; Yett v. Houston Farms Development Co., Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 305; Bates v. Lefforge, Tex.Com.App., 63 S.W.2d 360; Buchanan v. Monroe, 22 Tex. 537; Monroe v. Buchanan, 27 Tex. 24......
-
Shumate v. Com.
... ... Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Howard, 256 Ky. 363, 76 S.W.2d 246; Kentucky ... ...
-
Sanders v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...in the inverse order of alienation. Under such circumstances this assignment must necessarily be overruled. Yett v. Houston Farms Development Co. et al., Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 305, writ refused; Hall v. Dallas Joint-Stock Land Bank of Dallas, Tex.Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 200, writ refused; Dav......