Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-07-01

att0rneY what ne oWed litA- aNS ~. -l~l
answered they owed hin notnioS
be had 20 charges 20 make anc
mas glad 10 get out Of the case. a VII
nass says the lawyer renamed nc
work. no BAY" This was not an aalnsS
ment Of acoutrOyersY between the parhies
a. 70 the lawyers fee II i shows any.
thing, It Is that the attorney surEenoeIel
bis fee for no consideration. Alnfiiieo
Opinion By Willie, CD.
William FaubiOn ~ j. e rogers sl-
peal from Milan The only proper per.
I ties 70 a suit 20 fOreclOse q mortgage and
like liens, are the rVoEtgtgor ana mort
gage. and th6ss who hkse acquired any
Interest from them subsequently, 20 the
/ mortgage. Asthere Il no pEIylty between
an adverse claimant who j. stranger 20
the mortgage and the estate, he cannot be
made party for the purpose 'of trying
| his adverse claim In the foreclosure suit.
This vas 4 case where 6 vendor was seek
I Ing 10 fOreciose his lien ard had made
subseauens purchaser from bis yendee 8
party defendant. Such g purchaser In
possession was a prvper and necessary
party 20 the suit 10 foreclose In order -
bind him By the Judgment and bar his
equity Of redemption. Having been
brought IN As such purchaser be had no
right 70 set ID an adverse title in himself
ard have that lliigated 10 the foreclosure
suit Affirmed Opinion BY Willie, G. J.
J. Heidenheimer vs. j. 81. Hefey, ep-
peal from Milan. Blagg sold the land to
Feu5lon, taking notes for part Of The p1r
chase money and reserving in the deed q
lien to secure the notes FSu5ion's in
terest IN the land passed through q deed
Of trust and sale 70 HeldenhelmeF Biagg
sold some Of the purchase money notes 70 /
Misirat et al. and they brought suit against
Faubion, after bis interest had passed TO
Heidenheitner, and obtained decree fore I
closing their lien. The plaintiff, Hehey, I
purchased at TIA, sale and brought tres
pass 20 try title. Referring 20 the case Of I
Whitehead vs.. Fisher, "a Tex, SIS, the 4
court says "li FaubiOn had not 4
sold to Heidenhcimer, the parallel be-
tween the tw0 cases Ia legal reasoning /
would be complete This difference, in 4
the opinion Of q majority Of the court,
did not prevent Hefey from acquiring the
superior tiile--but only Ia not making
Heldenheimer q party, his incompleted
equity was not cut of He could perfect
mis- right By performing Faubion's Obliga-
tons, but he could not defend bis posses
sion without rendering the perform
ance OF the conditions by which his right
would be perfected" Sir. Justice Rob
ertsOn expresses the opinion that "the
foreclosure decree had no effect on
The purchaser under that
decree succeeded only 70 the plaintiff :
lights as holder OF the purchase money
totes, and this title does not Justify the
Judgment" Affirmed Opinion bY Rob
.rtson, j.
john LAuTens ct al. vs.. Nancy Ander-
on ct al, appeal from Fannin. One who !
axes under a qr1it claim deed Is not en- F..
tiled 20 the protection Of court Of
qniiyt as an innocent purchaser fof
slue for he takes under The deed only
uch interest as the vendor could law.
lliy convey. In other words, be takes
be chances Of title bat not necessarily the
md. In the deed in this case, unde, I
hitch defendant made claim for improve.
tents in good faith, Anderson CONVEYS ]
y his fright, title, Interest and claimn {
J and to the land. The deed has q clause 9
special warranty, followed by these Z
ords, making thls quit claim deed "
he court rightly concluded the deed 20 J.
e a quit claim. Affirmed. Opinion oil n
onmission Of appeals adopted. :
John Z. Wallace IS. Grow etal., appeal J..
ON Burnet. Where the prior deed IS 5,
,it without being recorded, q SUBSEQUENT y
ona fide purchaser from the grantor, 81
'ithout notice of the lost deed, win take 81
God title az against the iirs. purchaser.
lot 10 do this he would have 70 prove
therWise than by the recItals In his deed
nat he had paid the consideration. l28
ex. ffb) The second purchaser, II d
Fihout notice, takes title as against the Il
urecorded deed, not because any title a
emained 10 the vendor after the first Il
conveyance, but simply by force OF the S
aglstratlon laws. These laws, however, o
ave no healing virtue that can cure the u
elects OF quit-Clgim deed The record A
I such deed amounts TO notice simply a
nat The grantor's interest IN the land was /
hereby conyeyed-uot that the grantOr I
nd any title thereto. Reversed and rem q
cred. Opinion Of commission of appeals Z
iOpied. :
T. A. Galbraith vs. +. A. Engelke, APP l
cal from Burnet. on March IL, 1881, /
lie heirs, Glddlngs, conveyed appellants' s
sudor an undivided half OF the
act OF land in controversy. To that
eed Brown and his wife (who was an
eir) were parties. The deed was recorded Z
une "a, 1855. In October, 1882, the /,
eirs Of Giddings, including Bro, 80
life, decided 10 Brown "all their right, :
Itle and interest and claim unto all other ,,
eel estate, other than the tracts already !
onyeyed to him, In the state Of Texas !
to the estate Of Giddlngs, in
luding all In possession or that may be
discovered or reclaimed by the said .
irown." There was warranty against I
II persons claims through them. Held,
he terms OF the deed viii not embrace
be land in controversy, and as against
ppellant 1t conveyed no title to Brown.
reversed and rendered. Opinion OF com.
iisson OF appeals adopted. $
It's freedom from opium and mornhla S