Court Opinion

ID: 9765935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:25:35.039921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:16.893654
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the result. The petitioners, plaintiffs in the trial court, have failed to prove either a legal or equitable title. Therefore, the question of innocent purchaser need not be decided. The Court has unnecessarily passed upon the question, and more than that has held contrary to the well-settled rule governing the construction of deeds similar to the one involved in the present case. Another thing, the Court apparently is charging Thomas with the burden of proving that he was an innocent purchaser. The burden of proof is always with the party asserting an equitable title. In this case, the burden of proof was with Petitioners, W. C. Bryan et al., and not Thomas. Bryan et al. failed to offer any evidence to show that Thomas was not an innocent purchaser. For that reason, if none other, Thomas should recover. See: Tasher v. Foster Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 665, no wr. hist.; Miles v. Martin, 159 Tex. 336, 321 S.W.2d 62.
The Court should not select this case as a forum to announce new theories and new law. We should select a case where the issue is squarely drawn and fully presented.
I concur in the result.