The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1894-03-28
HIGHER COURTS,
.,.orsEs or DECISIONS As
HANDED down.
,.r, of the state Conrts of
s''.ort Is Causes Tnkcn Up
p -,eai From tho Lower
/" judicial Tribunals

-,,,rt--,Iohn ". sayton. chief
~ n. Gaines ana y. }. broM u,
lri ~ q. g. Morse c.ttN' NVV''
'ls' = @.xas. March 21-rhc supreme
~ ,,,,,srea ths following opinion yes
N = bradford ct al! IS. Thomas j.
tda y ii from Guadalupe cehnty
fiss ~ before o.lis court ~ q ior.n-
ease ", 1rexas, lC9J MichHe. Ersklne
~ Won source Of NlLic. IN lNlJ Ne
4 eghn ',,,ortgagc upon thls land %
iiN ,aht due 4. I. Cdperton. In 1871
\ n second mortgage 20 SECURE
tsp.t{ 4. bv himself aud o,hets given
q ~ g, 5rInahals Us trds.ees for the
~ as ihe nelrs Of j, &, EnrlnkAaus,
w, 's,,s,sine executed 10 tpse same
q I'' 5ss.i TO 100 acres OF This land,
4 ss,rsrton brought suit uSuinst the
= ..rafar cf NJ. Ersltlnc Tor iorcclos'
Nv mortgage. Tho plaintiffs We're
4 nart.us 20 this SUIT. ne hLld
;s,3 ,ssieg this foreclosure, aiil boue't
- p. Ersklne, through Whom d.
/ lo'u ~ In Whether the claim was
|tA No administration does not
En " yybether the district court
u, z" enforce IT'S own decree or
|aaoe certify * TO the county court.
81 .vestion is as to the validity of
NV y .iohn Y. Erskine, which took
ptns Ne act Of March 2Q.1SiS, was
WI. gas expressly held IN Meyers
lbs TeNas) that In proceeding
VA, a claim against decedents
s.Asirh Is secured by a mortgage,
~. court had no power to order
4 lse property for tho satisfaction
4 IN, In our view OF the case this
va "a not important. NJ. Ersklne
l.osveyed the land IN question. il
i.,e Dart of his estate. and the
MI. as has been held. had no
4 s,-oo over II, aud no jurisdiction 10
4 ole % the land, Is. VS.. g.. 70
f-nl And for precisely the snme
4. * district court had no power TO
A !. sale simply as the property OF
f ,cils-the estate having DO tiUe,
i 1ultable, in u, But tho sale IN
Y. q 10 the plaintiffs must be held
4 m. FOR another reason, The decd
4 :skine to the plaintiffs was placed
4 ~ before tine foreclosure suit was
II has bcen held IN this STATE
a sirA cases the grantee Of the
err Is a necessary party 10 the
va sent by the ortgagcc, and
W " * not AlltctfA hlllt0S ht - Il
Hslys Hall II Texas, go; Buch-
81 Z Texas. 27Gl We have line of
81 "a hold that q vendor In ap OK
~ = o,atract for the sale OF land
81 n, slsd his vendee 70 enforce the
4, Neover the land without MAX
II rkquent pGrchs ser party. "a
Fl an The doctrine Is that tho ven
M iae paramount title. These
r very clearly distluguishable
~ previously clte1. IN which K
II eat the purchaser from mort
rsfH Affected by IL foreclosure rliFt
rsbh not q party, In this State
,syngc- has Tho legal tide aud con-
Hrss Ms grantee. In an eNecutoCy
1kW tle fHlc or laIl, when Inc
J. s.srey IS unpaid. the vendor re-
- b pspl title and the Ncuien =
Halty, which alone passes To
n s.asfst vondee. Tho case at bar
z +.4s the rule arnouuced IN the
n e-essi. and e must therefore he
Il ElHRn p. Ersklna acquired no
- fgYSri In controversy as agcinst
Is, s. a--hby virtue OF bis purchase
rkakee % foreclosure. The
szft's case Is of no effect rs
4 shfina under the circumstances
fi Equitable 10 require them 10
inndUion OF recovery. IL they
sstie parties e would have been
f1itnehow that the mortgage was
= u To any event to require the
rr. b sell the other land subject
sns;sge before proceeding agalust
( ne bel been conveyed 10 them hy
Ir;isor In such case the rule
~ IN Northcraft VS. Oliver CA
ID Is mi ha nrsg,,fal Il t- ale, die