Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-31
THE HIGH COURTS.
syllabus Of Opinions Rendered at Inc
Galveston Term, 1854.
SUPREME COURT.

: SUPREME COURT
Black,s heirs w. DeGress, from Vol
lin county.--The grantee OF lanu W,
,ifIcate In 1893 transferred 10 one -
: BLACK AN unlec,ted balance III the zen M
! tilicate of about S,0OO acres ana III loiV
: by deed of warranty uansIerteu
same party 500 out of the certii,cSt1ee'
The certificate was located 10y J' "
Black for ]. Black In 1871 anu IL ply
entpd In 1851 in the name OF the 1r'sI-
, nal prantee. who together WIN -
BLACK. died in ls42, In lsiB j. ~
: Black brought suit against the aahilh'
: istrstion of j. Black for locative inter
eat and recovered l,S0O acres. ms
suit was between parties deralshing
title respectively from the Two
Blacks. To avoid the original transfer
of the certificate to j. Blnck, the ue-
PENDANTS In error, claiming under D.
ID. Black, assert that the transfer was
merged in and cancelled by the second
transfer with warranty ofthe 1900 acres
1t is apparent from the record tnat ny
the ASSIGNMENT of the INDICATED pal
nnce, because the owner OF
the then Indicated balance,
and there il nothing showing
that riuhl had been Invested or limited
10y any subsequent act OF the parties
That being true, the patent to the orig
inai grantee vested title in him In trust
for his assignee. A. Tex, So. The sur
viving widow of the original grantee,
having married with her husband,
in 1854 conveyed the land in contro-
yersy To one Y. This seems to have
been the first reputation of the origi-
nal Assignment TO j. Black. me
widow of j. Black died about 1852, and
plaintiffs In error were then minors or
married women. This SUIT was
brought In 1876. No one appears to
have been in actual possession OF the
land. Under such circumstances the
plaintiffs in error were not preclnded
10y lapse of time from asserting ana
maintaining their right. The evidence
does not support the Judgment. he-
versed and reminded.
Mokeen VIZ. Sultingfuss ct nj, from
BeIar county The pre-eXisting doc
rine on the subject has been so FAR
modified by recent registration laws
that il is now declared that ali convey
ances unless acknowledged or proved
and lodged with the clerk for record
"shall be void rs to all creditors and
subsequent purchasers for valuable
consideration without notice" IL is
now settled that only lien creditors
are embraced in he statute. And
when creditor has secured n lien
upon the property without notice Of
the existence of the nen-recOrded deed,
he ia entitled To the protection OF the
statute See q Texas, 607 IN the rule.
The creditor uHving secured n specific
lien 10y con act upon the land without
notice Of the unrecorded deed il entl-
tied to the prOt,Ctluu of the statute.
Il. ~ Co. in this case acquired only
such inter, st a III. had in The property,
and rs he had long Invested himself
by an Rbsolut- & nyeyance to plain
tiiis In error, +. Il Go. acquired act
ually nothing by their purchase. As |
to-the right OF appellees to enforce
their prior lien against the land, they |
were prec,uded by the operation of the |
statute Of limitations. Reversed and |
J. w. Flanagan VS.. Cochran, adj
etc, from Rusl county
For statement OF the nature of the cas-.
see former report, 50 Texas, 2GG. |
II has been held that the bringing of a
suit for land, which is voluntarily !
abandoned or dismissed for want OF
will not interrupt the
OF the statute OF limitations.
~ Texas, 1916. While it is "A well set
tied doctrine that purchaser Of prop
er,y, pen denie lite ia as conclusiyely |
bound by the result OF such litigation !
as though he had been an original |
party, it cannot avail in case where |
none of the issues were decided by the
litigation. Hence it afforded no inn
pediment to the running of the limi-
tation In this ease. a mere disclaimer
OF tho landlords title by the !
tenant and attorning TO an
other does not operate as a
desseisin OF the landlord unless he
elects so TO consider it. Hence the
charge complained OF was not error
To affect the claim of adverse title. the
disclaimer OF the landlords title by the
tenant must be open, and he must give
the landloed notice thereof. The evil |
dence is amply sufficient to support the
verdict IN this case. Affirmed on re,
port OF walker, commissioner.
Seiklfk vs.. Harmon, from Bexar
county.-As to the husbands control !
over the community estate of the wife |
after her death, see l6 Tex ass; Is Tex.
26l. 1t has been settled that a judu- |
n'nt obtained against the husband |
after the death Of the wife upon IA com. |
munity debt, whether the suit was |
brought before or after her death N |
binding upon him and her heirs, al |
though the latter Were not parties TO
the suit. An execution sale OF com |
munlty property made by virtue of |
such Judgment would devest the hu..
band and such heirs OF all interest in !
the property. The plaintiffs in error
hah families OF their own ut the time |
OF the death Of their mother, there were |
no minor children at the time. and |
objection that the trust deed executed |
before The death OF the wife by the
husband alone, could not he enforced !
btcause 1t covered the homestead. can. |
not be maintained. (52 Tex. IGi ! |
While during the life of the wife a sale /
81 the homestead, under the deed OF |
trnst executed 10y the husband alone |
could not defeat the wife's homestead
rights sire alone could assert the ex.
enlp'i ION against the forced sale under |
,uch trust deed. Ii Is the settled !
doctrine in this state that bond Far
title executed alone by the husband IN
convey title to the community home.
stead, can be enforced after the death |
OF the wife. (23 Tex. $50; 81 Tex. I50l
Affirmed. 'Vo''
Ryan VS.. Porter, from Rurleson
county.--ln the absence OF c0nsljtn.
houa or statutory enaotments. the
rule OF decision in this state is that NJ
the common law. This rule apple, 10
the contribution Of written instrm.
menis. Implied conditions subsequent
In grants, devises, etc, are dlseolr.
aged by courts ofsiaw and equity. IL