Court Opinion

ID: 9834073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:16:36.917841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.417032
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted that we erred in holding that appellant was not required to offer by pleading to pay any part of the purchase money not paid, etc. Appellee sued in action of trespass to try title. Appellant answered, claiming one-half the land as a joint purchaser with appellee, and charging that ap-pellee negotiated the transaction and took the deed in his individual name, which was unknown to appellant, etc., and prayed for general and equitable relief. Appellee replied by setting up, among other things, that he had executed a trust deed on the land to secure a note given by him for the balance of the purchase money, which was outstanding. Appellant replied, and admitted the outstanding of the loan for the purchase money, and prayed as in his amended answer.
We recognize the equitable rule, as laid down in Hoffman v. Buchanan, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 368, 123 S. W. 171, that he who seeks equity must do equity; but does this rule apply to appellant, when he admits the existence of the loan and asks for equitable relief in the premises? The debt was not due, and we think under the pleadings, if appellant recovered, the court, in entering judgment, should make an equitable adjustment in regard to the payment of the purchase price due on the land. If appellant’s testimony be true, and that was a question for the jury, the appellee under his pleading was not entitled to recover the land in an action of trespass to try title.
The case was not properly submitted to the jury, and we think our disposition of it, in reversing and remanding it, was proper.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.