Case ID: tex_8/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lipscomb, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tison v. Smith.
    If the vendor be willing, ready, and able to make title at the time which he has contracted to do s-o. the fact that he had no title at the dale of his contract is immaterial, especially where the vendee has notice at both periods of the facts of the case.
    Where a docroe tor title called fora beginning point, thence south toagiveti point, thence east to a given point, thence north toa given point, thence east to the place of beginning: Held, 'flint the course and point designated in the last call being inconsistent, the point should control the course; and the decree was affirmed.
    Where the defendant pleaded that the notes sued on were given for land, and that the plaintiff Jmd no tide to (¡he hind, wherefore tho consideration failed: Meld, That a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for tlie purchase-money and a decree in favor of the' defendant for the land would not preclude the defendant from his remedy against the plaintiff if the metes and bounds should not prove to contain as much land as contracted for, and if the defendant was deceived by the plaintiff as to the quantity.
    •Jt seems that the court will not tako judicial notice of the quantity of land embraced in given courses and distances.
    Error from Bowie.
    
      Mills and Pirkey, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Moseley and Morrill, for defendant in error.
   Lipscomb, J.

There are but two points assigned for error in this case 'thought to be worthy of notice.

Eii-ft, that tlie, court below erred in excluding the evidence offered to show that Smith at tins lime, of the contract did not own all the laud which in his ■contract ho liad offered to convey by good title to Tison. It is not believed that there, was any error in such rejection. If Smith was willing-, ready, and .able to make litio at the, time, lie had undertaken by his contract to make that tide, his not being able to do so at the date of his contract-would be wholly ■immaterial, even under the most stringent application of the law.

It seems, too, that Tison was aware that Smith would have to purchase a .part of tire land he had undertaken to convey from McKinny; and that lie was also aware that the purchase from McKinny liad been made by Smith before the time had expired for making the title under the contract between Smith and himself. For this portion so purchased it appears that Smith paid McKinny more than he was to receive from Tison.

The other objection is, that the judgment on the verdict is erroneous and does not give the boundaries or quantity of land called for by the contract. After giving judgment for Smith for the purchase-money sued for, it proceeds to adjudge that Smith shall make the title according to his contract, and designates the mode in which the six hundred and forty acres sold shall be surveyed ; that it shall commence at a designated point and run south to a given point, then east to a given point, north to another given point, then east to the place of beginning. Now, the last-named course could never reach the point •of beginning as it directs it shall do, and is therefore inconsistent and repugnant to the call for the point of beginning. If such a mistake was made in a deed there can be no doubt that the rule ox construction would be to consider •the course to be west instead of east, because by running west the point of beginning could be reached and could not by running east. It was in all probability a clerical mistake; but it can be of uo sort of consequence, because the point called for must control the course designated. It is objected that the area contained in the metes and bounds will not embrace the six hundred and forty acres of land ordered to be conveyed and the amount sold by Smith to Tison. I apprehend that if it be true that the quantity is not embraced, and that Tison was deceived by Smith as to the quantity within the bounds called for in the contract, his representatives would not be without remedy for such deficiency, notwithstanding the judgment of the court, because this question is not adjudicated in the suit. Whether there is a deficiency or not would have to be determined by the evidence of a scientific surveyor, and we have no such evidence before us on the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.