Court Opinion

ID: 9828669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:36:42.50655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.696790
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant complains of our finding that the deed of Thomas Tinsley to G. W. Tinsley, of date October 20, 1897, was not recorded until about a year after its date. The statement in the opinion is not accurate, as the deed was in fact recorded in San Jacinto County in February of "the year following its date. It had been placed of record in another county shortly after its date. We were misled as to the state of the xecord on this point by a statement in the brief of appellee.
Appellant also complains of a statement in the opinion to the effect "that appellee deraigned his title from the sovereignty of the soil. If "the statement is not technically correct it is immaterial, as both parties' claim under Thomas Tinsley, their immediate vendor. Ho point was made before this court involving an objection to the evidence either on "ihe ground that Corbett failed to connect himself with the sovereignty •of the soil or failed to show common source. Heither of these matters have any effect on the conclusion reached by us.
It is further urged that we erred in finding that Thomas Tinsley made .a blanket deed to his brother covering all his lands in Texas. The deed spoken of was of date January, 1899; does not seem to have been adduced in evidence, and Thomas Tinsley in testifying about it says he •can not say that it was not a blanket deed including all his lands in ‘Texas. Thinks it specified the surveys and the grantee was his brother. He does not say how much land it covered. On page 108 of the record he leaves a like impression, and in his affidavit on motion for new trial he •admits that the Comanche County deed contained expressions which were susceptible of such construction, but swore that he had no intention to make it a blanket deed. The Comanche County deed was not of date prior to the deed assailed in this suit but was subsequent thereto, and the expression in the opinion is erroneous to that extent. If such a deed in fact existed it could not affect the inquiry here except in so far as it might throw light upon the financial condition of Thomas Tinsley at the prior date, viz., October 20, 1897, We were undertaking to state in a general and cursory way some of the prominent facts disclosed by the record indicating insolvency. To indicate in this opinion the exact •state of the record on the question would be next to impossible. We-"have seldom, found a record so involved and confused. But the record itself is not more confusing than the testimony of Thomas Tinsley. He testifies to a vast number of tracts of land scattered over many counties *639in the State. Nearly all of them have either been hypothecated or are affected by judgment liens. Many of them the witness knows little of, either as to the title or status as to liens. There are foreclosures through the courts with interest, costs, and attorneys fees; trustees sales out of court, with attendant costs, and through and over it all wanders the Beck judgment, the Houston Land and Trust Company judgment, and the Corbett judgment, seeking something belonging to defendant and subject to execution. This search according to Corbett extended over five years. According to Thomas Tinsley it resulted in the sacrifice of thousands of dollars’ worth of his lands. If this deed to G. W. Tinsley is not set aside the judgment must go forth again seeking what of Thomas Tinsley’s property it may devour. The record reeks with indications of the hopeless confusion and insolvency into which Thomas Tinsley’s affairs had fallen. Yet counsel for appellant gravely insists not only that this court erred in refusing to disturb the judgment of the trial court, but that there is no evidence upon which to base such a finding. Counsel is surprised that the trial court did not credit the statement of appellant that he was worth thousands of dollars over his liabilities when one of his chief complaints was that a judgment which he had failed to pay was destroying him.
Had counsel for each side been more careful to be accurate in their statements, this court would have been spared much tedious labor and the errors pointed out in the motion would have been avoided. We have carefully considered the motion for rehearing, but have found no reason to change our conclusion as expressed in the original opinion. The motion is overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.