Case Name: M. L. Stipe et al. v. T. E. Shirley et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1901-11-07
Citations: 27 Tex. Civ. App. 97
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. L. Stipe et al. v. T. E. Shirley et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 97–102

Head Matter:
M. L. Stipe et al. v. T. E. Shirley et al.
Decided November 7, 1901.
1. —Deed—Community Property—Conveyance of “All Interest.”
Where the only statement in the record of the contents of a deed of community property, executed by B. after the death of his wife, is a mention of the conveyance as a deed of all B.’s “right, title, claim, and interest” in the land, describing it, with names of the parties, its date and record, the appellate court is not justified in holding that such deed conveyed the deceased wife’s interest in the land.
2. —Same—Trespass to Try Title—Presumption as to Payment of Community Debts—Issue for Jury.
The action being in trespass, to try title by plaintiffs, claiming as the heirs of B.’s wife against defendant claiming under such deed from B., and the evidence showing that plaintiffs had not paid taxes on the land for more than twenty years during which defendant’s title was of record, the trial court, if it should construe the deed from B., in the light of its full recitals and the attendant circumstances, as conveying the community interests of both B. and his wife, should submit to the jury the issue as to the presumption that the deed was made by B. to satisfy community debts which arises from the long acquiescence of the heirs of the wife.
3. —Trespass to Try Title—Equitable Title—Stale Demand.
Where an equitable title is asserted against another, as where both parties claim through one who held under bond for title, the plea of stale demand is not available as a defense.
4. —Deed—Description of Land.
A sheriff’s deed of land sold under execution, describing it merely as a tract of 900 acres in 0. County, Texas, “being a part of a survey made in the name of the heirs of B. C., levied on as the property of W. S. M.,” was void for insufficiency in the description, as was also a deed executed by the sheriff’s vendee' with the same description.
Appeal from Collin.
Tried below before Hon. J. E. Dillard.
Abernathy & Beverly and G. R. Smith, for appellant.
M. H. Garnett; R. 0. Merritt; J. M. Pearson, and John Church, for appellees.

Opinion:
PLEASANTS, Associate Justice.
Appellant M. L. Stipe, joined by several coplaintiffs, heirs of Susan Baker, deceased, brought this suit in the form of an action of trespass to try title to recover of appellees the title and possession of a tract of about 500 acres of land, a part of the Benjamin Clark survey, in Collin County, Texas. The court below instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants upon their pleas of limitation and stale demand, and upon the return of such verdict judgment was rendered for the defendants.
The plaintiff Stipe alone appeals, and the only error assigned is predicated upon the action of the trial court in instructing a verdict for the defendants.
The land in controversy was conveyed to James Baker by Washington 5. McClure by bond for title executed February 25, 1852. James Baker conveyed the land to his sons, William C. and Robert P. Baker, on August 23, 1860, and this deed was recorded September 23, 1860. The appellant claims title to the land as vendee of one of the heirs of Susan Baker, deceased, who was the wife of James Baker at the time of the conveyance to him by McClure, and who died prior to the conveyance by Baker to his sons. The defendants claim through the deed from Baker, and also assert title to a portion of the land under a conveyance from one James H. Love joy. Susan Baker died October 21, 1858, and James Baker died December 25, 1871. The plaintiffs have never paid any taxes on the land, and never asserted any claim thereto prior to the institution of this suit. Some of the defendants had been in actual possession of portions of the land for more than twenty years before this suit was brought. We think under this evidence the existence of facts which would have authorized James Baker to convey his wife's interest in the land should be presumed, and there being no evidence to rebut this presumption, the court could have properly instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. A correct result having been reached and a proper judgment rendered, it is immaterial whether or not the reasons given by the trial court for such judgment are sound, and it is unnecessary for us to determine whether plaintiffs' claim is a stale demand or is barred by the statutes of limitation, because in no event are they entitled to recover under the facts in this case. Veramendi v. Hutchings, 48 Texas, 552; Hensel v. Kegans, 79 Texas, 349. The deed from James Baker had been of record for nearly forty years at the time this suit was brought, and plaintiffs' failure to assert their rights for so long a period, notwithstanding the fact that they must have known of the existence of such deed, raises the natural presumption that they knew that no wrong had been committed by James Baker in selling his wife's interest in said land, and that the same was sold for the purpose of paying the community debts of said James and Susan Baker. After the lapse of so long a period of time it is not to be expected that the defendants could produce direct evidence of the existence of community debts, and for this reason the law will presume the existence of such debts from the long acquiescence by the heirs of the wife in the sale by the husband. There was not a word of testimony produced by the plaintiffs showing or tending to show that the community estate of James and Susan Baker owed no debts at the date of the conveyance by James Baker of the land in controversy, nor any testimony explaining the long acquiescence of appellants' vendor in the act of James Baker in selling said land.
The facts in this case raise the presumption that the conveyance from James Baker was made for the purpose of paying the community debts of himself and his deceased wife, and there being no evidence to contradict this presumption, the plaintiffs show no right of recovery, and the trial court did not err in instructing the jury to return a verdict for the defendants. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
Affirmed.