Court Opinion

ID: 9829259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:08:23.194224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.197456
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
Appellee insistently urges error in our original opinion in several respects. Upon a careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that the principal sum found by us to be due on the original contract is properly subject to some deductions. The contract of sale between Corbett and Allman, or Alimón (both spellings occurring in the record) provided that the purchase price should be $300, payable as follows:
“(1) The sum of $39.80 on the delivery of this contract. (2) All taxes now due or that may fall due on said land at such time as will prevent it being sold for taxes, and all costs connected with such taxes. (3) The balance of said $300 in four equal promissory vendor’s lien notes,” ete.
[5] The court did not specifically 'find that plaintiff made the $39.80 payment, but the uncontroverted testimony of plaintiff was that he did, and therefore we should probably impute to the court such a finding in favor of the judgment. Paragraph II of the court’s findings of fact reads as follows:
“That at such time there was due in back taxes, penalties, and costs the sum of $74.74.”
There is no finding that the plaintiff paid this amount. Paragraph VI of the court’s findings merely says:
*94■' “That the plaintiff has' each year paid the current taxes on said property 'since the date.oí said contract.”
Paragraph VIII finds:
• “That the said defendant Corbett has paid no .taxes whatever upon the said property since 'the date of said contract.'”
■ There is some evidence, the testimony, of M. B. Harris, witness for plaintiff, that hack taxes were paid on a larger tract, of which plaintiff’s 100 acres, the land in controversy, was a part, and that plaintiff paid a part of these back táxes. There is no satisfactory evidence as to what amount was in fact paid by plajntiff. However, perhaps, in this, state .of .the. record, we should impute to the court, in "support of the judgment, the jindipg that the plaintiff in fact paid the $74.74.. These two sums amount to $114.54, leaving the balance due -on the purchase price of $185.46. This amount, instead of $800, as designated in our original judgment, with 8 per cent, interest from'May 1, 1901, would constitute the sum. the payment of,■ which, by plaintiff on or before November ■ 1, 1916, should be made the condition of vesting title to the land in him, and to this extent we, grant appellee’s motion to reform- the judgment. It might;. be proper to state, that plaintiff’s own ple,adings with reference to what the consideration was recite it to have be.en “$300 and [italics ours] the payment of. all tax”; but by reference to the contract set forth in the .statement of facts, and pleaded in, ex-tenso by defendant Corbett, we find the past-due taxes to be paid by plaintiff were a part of the $300 consideration.
As to other objections urged by appellee, we think they should be overruled. .Appel-lee brought this suit in form of-trespass to try; title, and specially pleaded the contract^ and his promise to pay the balance of the purchase price,.yet he specially pleaded the statute of limitation as to such obligation, and also pleaded the 10-year statute of limitation founded upon adverse possession. He never pleaded a sufficient tender, nor did he in fact tender the unpaid purchase price. Certainly, he did not offer to do equity, and was in reality in no position to invoke the equity powers of the court. Pitman v. Robbins, 59 S. W. 601; Curran v. Texas L. & M. Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 499, 60 S. W. 466, 467; Diffie v. Thompson, 88 S. W. 381, 382; Land & Cattle Co. v. Boon, 73 Tex. 548, 556, 11 S. W. 544; White v. Cole, 87 Tex. 500, 29 S. W. 759. Vet it was apparent that there were strong equitable reasons why plaintiff should not be deprived of his land, improved through years of effort, and, though he had not placed himself in a very favorable attitude to demand equity, this court felt justified in providing in its judgment that by the ■ payment of the unpaid purchase price within the time stipulated, with interest at the rate agreed upon originally by the parties, title to the land would be vested in plaintiff. Such a course waá pursued by the court, .in Pitman v. Robbins, supra, and has been pursued in other cases which might be cited. .
What we have just said answers the urgent insistence of appellant ■ in his motion to the ■effect that upon the grounds upon which appellee' has elected to wage his contest this suit should be decided-; that he has staked his whole case upon the defense of 'limitations, and, having lost, he should be accorded no equitable relief. But we adhere to our former disposition of the cause in this respect, and feel that in so doing we are sustained' by authority and by a sense of right and justice.
[6] Appellant further, contends that in any event he should be allowed to recover his attorney’s fees, as the . contract provided that the notes to be executed were to contain the usual stipulation as to attorney’s fees. If .appellant had recovered on the.notes which were to have been executed, he would have been’ entitled.- to his attorney’s fees. But he did not so recover, but upon his superior title to the land. ■ ,We do not think in this adjustment in equity, after so long a delay-in prosecuting his claim, he. is. hardly-justified in demanding the pound-of .flesh-,-or that we would be justified in including in the stipulation, conditioned as the basis for vesting title in appellee, attorney’s feés. , ■
' The judgment of this cofirt will be reformed, so as to provide that if appellee shall on or before November 1, 1916, pay into the trial court for the benefit of' appellant the sum of $185.46,- with 8 per cent, interest from May 1, 1901, with all costs, the title to the land in controversy shall -vest in appellee; otherwise, as provided in our original judgment.
Appellee’s motion, save as indicated, is overruled, and appellant’s motion is also overruled.