Court Opinion

ID: 9832910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:17:32.337563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:55.224069
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
According to plaintiff’s version of this case, the version which the jury accepted upon the trial, the deed dated April 14, 1928, which was absolute upon its face, by which plaintiff conveyed to defendant 65½ acres of land, was intended as trust deed to vest in defendant the legal title to said land, but to leave the equitable title thereto in plaintiff. According to defendant’s version of the case, the deed of 1928 was intended to convey to her (defendant) the entire title, both legal and equitable. In view of these conflicting versions, the deed of November 9, 1933, by which defendant reconveyed to plaintiff the south 50½ acres out of 65½ acres required explanation.
The explanation of the 1933 deed given by plaintiff was that, at the time, his equitable title was provable only by parol evidence, and that he wanted again to become vested with the entire title. Therefore, in order to get the entire title to the south 50½ acres, he orally agreed with defendant that she should have the entire title to the north 15 acres. And that it was to effect this oral agreement that the deed of 1933 was given. As plaintiff’s title to the 65½ acres was equitable only, and provable only by parol, he could validly renounce to defendant, as the owner of the legal title, by parol agreement his equitable title to all of the 65½ acres, or any part less than all. Knight v. Tannehill Bros., Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 552, writ denied; Rebold Lumber Co. v. Scripture, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W. 586, writ denied.
We have concluded that plaintiff had the right to allege and prove his explanation of why the deed of 1933 was given to him, and at the same time take the position that, since defendant repudiated parol agreement under which said deed was executed, and compelled plaintiff to prove by parol that the deed of 1928 was a trust deed, the consideration therefor had failed, and that consequently the deed of 1933 was no longer binding upon him, and sue to recover the equitable title to the entire 65½ acres, and have the deed of 1928 declared a cloud upon his title thereto.
Plaintiff’s (appellee’s) motion for rehearing is therefore granted, and our former judgment modifying the judgment of the trial court (by reversing and rendering so much thereof as awarded plaintiff recovery of the 15 acres) is set aside and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Rehearing granted.
Former judgment set aside.
Judgment affirmed.