Court Opinion

ID: 9829016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:55:39.222196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.337438
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We cannot ágree with the statement in appellants’ motion for rehearing that the evidence adduced on the trial of this case on the issues determined by this court in the case of Clements v. Texas Co., 273 S. W. 933, is materially different from the evidence in the Clements Case. The evidence is practically identical in the two cases.
The contention that there is evidence in this case which shows that, at the time .of the .execution sale of 1,000 acres in the southeast corner of the Tennille grant, George Tennille had a homestead of 200 acres in that corner of the grant, and that other portions of that corner of the grant were not owned by George Temhille, is not supported by the record.
There is no evidence in the record from which it can be reasonably inferred that Ten-nille had a homestead in that, portion of the grant at the time of the levy and sale under execution. On the contrary, the evidence negatives such conclusion. The only evidence tending to show that any portion of the 1,000 acres in form of a square in the southeast corner of the grant was not owned by Tennille at the time of the levy are statements or admissions made by Underwood some years after his purchase, in a suit involving the location of the division line between his land and land owned by Tennille in the southeastern portion of the grant. These admissions are too indefinite to justify the conclusion sought to be drawn by appellant.
If it be conceded, however, that, the evidence is such as to require a finding that 1,000 acres of land taken in a square in the southeast corner of the grant, at the time of the levy, would have included Tennille’s homestead and some land not. owned by him, we are not prepared to hold that such facts would render the levy and sale void. Under such circumstances, no title would have passed by the execution sale and the sheriff’s deed to the Tennille homestead nor to land not owned by him, but as to the remainder of the 1,000 acres we think the sale should be held valid. Smith v. Crosby, 86 Tex. 15, 23 S. W. 10, 40 Am. St. Rep. 818; Ryan v. Engleson, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 62 S. W. 1072; Boyce v. Hornberger, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 337, 68 S. W. 701.
The motion for rehearing repeats and re-urges all of the numerous assignments contained in appellants’ brief, and, in addition, complains of many other errors committed by this court.
The record speaks for itself, and we deem it unnecessary to discuss other questions presented in the motion.
We adhere to the conclusion expressed in our main opinion, and the motion has been refused.
Refused.