Case ID: tex_23/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Roberts, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert F. Mitchell and others v. Thomas Puckett.
    To support the plea, that the defendants were bond fide purchasers, without notice of the plaintiff’s title, there must be proof of the payment of the purchase-money ; it is not enough that the defendants employed and paid an agent to go and purchase the land for them.
    Appeal from Cherokee. Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves.
    This was a suit by the appellee against the appellants, for a league of land. The appellee claimed the land under a deed from the original grantee; the appellants claimed it as purchasers from the heirs of the original grantee, without notice of the appellee’s title. They proved, upon the trial of the case, by Antonio Manchaca, that they gave him a negro woman, worth $800, to go to Louisiana, and purchase the land from the heirs of the original grantee, for them. It is unnecessary to state the other facts presented by the record in this case.
    
      M. H. Bonner, for the appellants.
    
      Donley & Anderson, for the appellee.
   Roberts, J.

The questions in this case are settled by the opinion of the Chief Justice, delivered at this term, in the case of Watkins v. Edwards; (supra, 443.) In this, as in that, there was no proof of a valuable consideration paid by the subsequent purchasers. They paid their agent to go and get the transfers; but the agent, who is sworn as a witness, does not state that they paid anything to their vendors.

This being clear, and being decisive, according to the opinion above referred to, it will be unnecessary to discuss the question, whether or not the jury were warranted in concluding, that the subsequent purchasers had notice, through their agent, of the previous transfers of the same land to another.

Judgment affirmed.