Court Opinion

ID: 9829735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:34:17.140825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.953669
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
A case of fraud as against Bouldin was alleged, a case of fraud as against him was provbd, and the Warrens were compelled to take the initiative in order to redress a wrong perpetrated through the fraud of Bouldin. Flack v. Neill, 22 Tex. 253. The court found, and embodied in his judgment, “that said defendant, Bouldin, represented to plaintiffs that said property was free of incumbrance, and the plaintiffs relied upon said statement and representations and believed the same to be true, and upon the faith thereof purchased said property which they would not have purchased had they believed the same was incumbered.” It was further found that there was a lien upon the land, and that Bouldin refused to permit the Warrens to pay off the lien. . Bouldin extinguished the lien long after this suit was instituted. They should not be compelled to pay an attorney’s fee forced on them by the conduct of Bouldin.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.