Case Name: John B. Calicote et al. v. Tempa Spencer
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 149
Docket Number: 
Parties: John B. Calicote et al. v. Tempa Spencer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 149–152

Head Matter:
John B. Calicote et al. v. Tempa Spencer.
Where 0. and C. had executed a title-bond, in the usual form, to T., for conveying land by a given day for a consideration already paid, and the conveyance was not made within the time, and no tender of title made until after the institution of the suit, during which time the property had depreciated in value, the vendee was not obliged to accept the conveyance, but had a right to recover the purchase-money and interest.
The fact that there was a vendor’s lien upon the property, which was foreclosed after the sale, under which the defandants bought, is no equitable excuse for the delay in making the title.
Appeal from Caldwell. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges.
Spencer sued Calicote and William B. Coffee, security, on a title-bond in the penal sum of $1,400, conditioned to make title to a lot in Lockhart to “ Tempa Spencer, for the sum of $700, to him in hand paid by the said Tempa Spencer, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged: “How, therefore, if the said J. B. Calicote make, or cause to be made, a good'warranty deed for the above described property to the said Tempa Spencer, or her assigns, by the 1st day of April, A. D. 1857, then this bond to be null and void; otherwise, to stand in full force and effect.”
The plaintiff assigned as breach, “that said defendant, Oalicote, did not, by the 1st day of April, 1857, or on that day, or at any time since, convey, or offer to convey, to said plaintiff, the property in said "bond mentioned, but has wholly failed so to do; by reason of said failure said plaintiff has been damaged, by said defendants, in the sum of $1,400.”
The defendant, Oalicote, plead the general issue, and also that he sold and delivered to the plaintiff the land on the 10th October, 1856, and put her in peaceable possession thereof, and that she still continues in the uninterrupted possession, enjoying the rents, &c.
Coffee put in a general demurrer and general denial.
By a first amended petition, the plaintiff averred that the bond was a covenant for a good warranty deed, and that it had not been made; wherefore she declared for $700 and interest.
In the second amended petition, she declared that Oalicote had owed her $879 80, upon which she had sued him; that, as a compromise, he paid the indebtedness, and gave her the bond in suit; that title had not been made, and because of the breach, he had damaged her $700 and interest; that Clardy and Blanks had a vendor’s lien on the land, which they had enforced by ’suit and the sale of the land, on the 6th of April, 1858, when "William Ellison became the purchaser; and hence the defendants had not, and could not, make her a title.
Coffee amended his answer, and plead that no demand for title had been made; that the plaintiff' had remained undisturbed in her possession; and he tendered a deed for the lot, signed by himself, with the usual covenants of warranty, and dated 25th October, 1859. Ellison conveyed to Coffee, by warranty deed, on the same day. There seemed to be a chain of title, with one link wanting. The plaintiff excepted to this answer of Coffee, because it came too late, and the property had depreciated in value.
The defendants put in bills of exception to the rulings, which excluded the evidence that Coffee and Ellison were able to make good their warranties, and for excluding the evidence of a lost deed from the patentee of the land, which was necessary to complete the title.
The facts show, that the plaintiff proved the bond declared on, proved the vendor’s lien, the suit, judgment, and sale. The defendants proved some claim of ownership by the plaintiff to the lot, and the fact of payment, by the surrender of Calicote’s note. They also proved the tender of the deeds plead by Coffee, and also the chain of title from the Q-overnment down to Coffee, and also some continued possession; but that the property had depreciated in value. Ellison swore that he purchased the property for $100, hut it cost him $426 90, as he had to pay off the vendor’s lien-judgment; that the property had been occupied by some one for five or six years. This defendant stated depreciation in the value of the property.
The court instructed the jury as follows :
1. If the purchase-money had not been paid by Mrs. Spencer, it would have been incumbent on her, before she could sue upon the penalty in the bond, to tender the purchase-money and demand a deed; hut such is not the case, when the purchase-money has been paid before the execution of the bond to convey by a day certain; for, if the title be not made in such a case by the time specified, the vendee or purchaser may elect to proceed for a specific performance of the contract, or may maintain suit on the penalty in the bond.
2. If you find, from the evidence, that the" defendant, Calicote, had received the sum of $700, specified as the purchase-money for the lot of ground described in the bond, and that such amount had been received before the execution of said bond, and you further find, that he had failed, up to the date of bringing this suit, to make title according to the terms of his bond, then you will return a verdict for the plaintiff, for such damages as she has sustained by defendant’s failure to make such title. The measure of damages should be the amount of purchase-money received by the defendant, Calicote, with 8 per cent, thereon.
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $700 and interest, from which the defendants appealed.
Hancock §■ West, for appellants.
Rogers Cowan, for appellees.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—We are of opinion, that there is no error in the judgment. The case was fairly presented to the jury by the charge of the court. The evidence sustained the allegation of the plaintiff's last amended petition, that the bond had been executed in consideration of a precedent indebtedness by Calicote to the appellee. This being so, the judge properly instructed the jury that, upon the failure of the obligors in the bond to execute the deed according to the stipulation of the bond, it was the privilege of the appellee to sue either for a specific performance •of the bond or to recover the penalty. The court did not assume in the charge that the purchase-money had been paid' for the land by the appellee prior to the execution of the bond, as is contended by counsel, but left the question of fact to be determined by the jury. The defendants in the court below showed no equitable excuse for not complying with the obligation of the bond, and the appellee was not bound, at so long á time after the breach of the bond and when the property had depreciated in value, to receive the deed tendered by the surety in the bond.
• 'The judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.