Court Opinion

ID: 9682721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:15:20.390183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.875742
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing
In his motion for rehearing appellee calls our attention to an error in our statement of this cause of action. We acknowledge our error and make the following statement in lieu of that contained in our original opinion.
During her lifetime and on July 25, 1950, Alma Wagner, a widow, executed four deeds whereby she conveyed to appellee approximately 600 acres of land in Austin, Washington and Fayette Counties. On the same day she executed two other deeds whereby she conveyed to appellant two tracts or lots of land in Fayette County. One lot was located in the town of Round Top, Texas, and the other in La Grange. There was a store building on each of the lots and Alma Wagner retained a life estate in each of those lots.
The above deeds were deeds of gift and disposed of all of the property of Alma Wagner except rentals received by her from the properties conveyed to appellant.
Appellee argues that by accepting benefits under the deeds conveying property to her appellant elected to accept such conveyances and thereby ratified the deeds to him and that by reason of such facts she is estopped to assert the invalidity of such deeds.
Appellant does allege that the deeds to her are invalid and seeks to have the same cancelled and set aside. If these deeds were the only ones in question then appel-lee’s argument would have merit however the real controversy is as to the conveyances to appellee which deeds, as we stated in our original opinion, are not shown to be conditioned on the deeds to appellant and are not shown to be a part of the same agreement if any, resulting in the conveyances to appellee or to appellant but the several deeds appear to be separate and distinct transactions. In this state of the record appellant’s contention that the deeds to her are invalid can neither aid nor prejudice appellee.
We remain convinced that by the record before us genuine issues of fact are presented and that appellee is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This view, in this summary judgment proceeding, requires that the trial court’s judgment be reversed and this cause remanded.
*589Our original opinion is corrected as above stated and to that extent appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted but in all other respects it is overruled.
Motion granted in part and in part overruled.