Court Opinion

ID: 9830544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:16:43.412549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.120467
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants assign error that the original opinion filed in this cause does not correctly state their contentions; that their contentions may be stated in their own words, we quote as follows from their motion for rehearing:
“Appellants have not made the contention stated in the opinion of the Court, but they did and do contend:
“(a) That such purported deed, when read in connection with the assignment of October 6, 1893, therein referred to, and considered in the light of the facts disclosed by the record in the Coryell County case of Ellis vs. Friend and Jones, specifically mentioned and contracted about in said assignment, discloses on the face of the record such actual fraud and such violation of the rules of public policy respecting the conduct of attorneys as to render said instrument absolutely void and ineffectual as a conveyance; and,
“(b) That if said deed be voidable only and not void, it nevertheless constitutes no bar to Appellants’ right of recovery in this action, for the reason that the facts disclosed by the instrument and its references are sufficient on the face of the record itself,
“1. To prevent said instrument having the effect of prima facie translating the title from the grantors to the grantee;
“2. To show that a right of defeasance existed in the grantors at the very time said instrument was executed and delivered; and,
“3. To obviate any necessity for a direct proceeding to set aside the instrument as a condition precedent to asserting title in opposition thereto.”
Our conclusion of fact “McComb never made any claim against Friend and Jones for the payment of attorney’s fees or for the payment of vendor’s lien notes” has solid support in the statement of facts. As shown by the original opinion, this was an old transaction and, while there was no witness who testified that such claim was made or was not made, the whole record supports our conclusion — the nonclaim by McComb for the payment of the notes or attorney’s fees; the nonclaim on appellants’ part for the land; the language of the deed itself; every circumstance connected with the entire case supports the conclusion as made. Appellants’ assignment on this point is overruled.
Beginning with the last call in the deed from G. A. Friend and O. L. Jones to W. P. McComb, we quote as follows: “Thence up said River with its meanders to the beginning corner, containing nine hundred and eighty-four (984) acres, more or less, less 100 acres conveyed to Dorris, less also 100 acres heretofore conveyed by us to Wiggins out of the East end of this 984 acres survey, leaving the amount hereby conveyed to said W. P. McComb, seven hundred and eighty-four (784) acres, more .or less, he having heretofore as aforesaid, purchased all the right, title and interest of our vendors or their assigns, in and to said tract of land and as aforesaid as part of the consideration hereof, he is by deed of even date herewith to convey to each of us, one hundred (100) acres, for our homesteads, less and reserving the timber on same, out of said 784 acres.”
A part of this description was inad-yertently omitted from the original opinion and at appellants’ request it is here inserted.
Appellants’ motion for additional conclusions of law and fact is denied. The opinion clearly states the grounds upon which the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. All assignments made by appellants are assignments of law upon what they claim to be the undisputed testimony in the record. Assignments of this nature are available to appellants on their petition for writ of error without fact conclusions by this court.
The motion for rehearing and for additional fact conclusions is overruled except as reflected by this opinion on rehearing.