Case Name: T. C. Hawpe v. George M. Smith
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 448
Docket Number: 
Parties: T. C. Hawpe v. George M. Smith.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 448–451

Head Matter:
T. C. Hawpe v. George M. Smith.
If a purchaser at an administrator’s sale would take himself out of the maxim of caveat emptor, he must satisfactorily prove that the administrator represented the property sold to belong to the estate of his intestate, and that it does not.
Error from Dallas. This is the same case which was reversed, because Judge Bureord, who was a party to the note sued on, tried it, although he had not been served with a process, and the plaintiff discontinued as to him. (Hawpe v. Smith, 22 Tex., 411; Paschal’s Dig., Note 531, p. 345.) It was again tried before John C. McCoy, a special judge. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1417, Notes 184, 521.)
On the 1st of July, 1856, George M. Smith, as administrator of the estate of John Smith, deceased, sold two tracts of land, under a decree of the county court of Dallas county, as the property of his intestate. T. C. Hawpe became the purchaser, and received the administrator’s deed therefor; which deed recited the proceedings by which a sale was decreed, and by which Hawpe became the purchaser of one hundred and seventy-five acres, a part of the Robert Moore survey, and eighty acres, a part of A. T. Nanny’s head-right; and also reciting the confirmation of sale. The deed contained thé quit-claim warranty “against the claims of all persons claiming the same by, through, or under the said John Smith, deceased, his heirs or legal representatives.” To secure the purchase-money, T. 0. Hawpe, E. P. Nicholson, and Nathaniel Burford, on the same day, 1st July, 1856, executed their joint and several note, whereby, twelve months after date, .they promised to pay George M. .Smith, administrator of the estate of John Smith, $2,860.
On the 24th November, 1857, Smith, as administrator, commenced suit against all the makers of this note. Hawpe acknowledged service as “principal.” No service was had upon Burford or Nicholson. Hawpe answered, that at the time of the sale, he had no knowledge of the eighty-acre tract, except that the same was located, surveyed, and patented by virtue of the head-right certificate of A. T. Nanny, for six hundred and forty acres, and no knowledge of the testator’s title, except what he derived from the administrator; that, relying on said representations, and believing that John Smith had a good title, he purchased both tracts; but now he learns that the fee-simple title of the eighty-acre tract is in the children of A. T. Nanny, because, although Nanny verbally sold the eighty acres in the lifetime of his wife, he made no deed to it until after her death, whereby her community interest remained in the heirs, &c.; that the eighty acres were worth $1,000, and (seeing breakers ahead) lie “tendered it back”
The next move of Hawpe was to file a motion, on the 1st February, 1858, to change the venue, because of the interest of the defendant and presiding judge., Hon. Nat. M. Burford.
John C. McCoy signed a bill of exceptions, as “special judge,” from which it appears that he excluded certain evidence as to Nanny’s title.
On the 2d February, 1858, the plaintiff' filed a demurrer to the defendant’s answer^ and he assigned as special cause, “that there is no tender of the said land, but only of a portion; and that said answer does not show the said tracts were sold separately.”
The order in the case was as follows :
“ This day came the parties, by their attorneys, and the presiding judge, being incompetent to try this cause, he having been a party at interest in the note sued upon, by consent of parties, John C. McCoy, Esq., is selected to try this cause; and, having taken the oath prescribed by law, the parties waived a jury, and submitted the matter in controversy, as well of fact as of law, to the court; and the evidence and the arguments of counsel having been heard and fully understood, and it appearing to the court that the plaintiff has dismissed this cause as to the defendants Burford and E. P. ¡¡Nicholson, it is considered by the court, that the plaintiff, George M. Smith, ádministrator, do' have and recover of the defendant T. C. Hawpe the sum of $3,349 36, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent, per annum, together with his costs in this behalf expended, and that he have his execution; and,the defendant in open court gives notice of an appeal to the Supreme Court.”
The case thus went to the Supreme Court upon the law and facts, the bill of exceptions being of no importance. The facts were as follows: The plaintiff proved his note. The defendant proved the administrator’s deed, already referred to; he proved that at the same time the plaintiff represented the property described in the deed as the property of his intestate, (John Smith,) and that he had a good title to the same; but the witness was not positive that the administrator made these representations. John W. Smith, a witness for the defendant, testified that during the life of Susan ¡¡Nanny, wife of Andrew T. ¡¡Nanny, ¡Rufus Burnett purchased the adjacent tract; witness purchased it from Burnett, and sold it to plaintiff’s intestate. It was then agreed that ¡¡Nanny should execute the deed to plaintiff’s intestate. Hp to that time there had been no written conveyance, but the land had been paid for by purchasers. Susan ¡Nanny died in the fall of 1854, leaving children. The deed of A. T. ¡¡Nanny to John W. Smith bore date of ¡¡November 12,1855. The crier at the sale was the defendant; and the witness swore he did not believe that any representations had been made by the administrator. The defendant prosecuted error.
The Reporter finds no brief for the plaintiff in error.
George W. Guess, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—We arc of opinion that there is no error in the judgment. It does not satisfactorily appear that the defendant in error made any representations concerning the title to the eighty acres of land at the time of the sale by him as administrator. At all events, there is no evidence of any representations by the administrator, Smith, that would relieve the plaintiff in error from the operation of the rule of caveat emptor. It is only necessary to refer to the case of Walton et al. v. Reager, 20 Tex., 103.
The judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.