Court Opinion

ID: 9832258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:46:02.8802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.864685
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees contend, in effect, that in holding the declarations of Mrs. Dignowity to Henry Dignowity, made after the delivery of the deed, to be inadmissible, we announced a rule at variance with all the authorities. We have given careful consideration to the authorities relied upon, and are of the opinion that most, of them have no application to the question presented. See 109, vol. 1, Greenleaf on Evidence, Smalley v. Paine, 62 Tex. Civ. App. 52, 130 S. W. 742, and Lord v. Insurance Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 139, 65 S. W. 699, citations greatly relied upon, relate to declarations made by a grantor in disparagement of his title or explanatory of or qualifying his possession, and have no bearing on ■ the question whether declarations of the grantor are admissible, made after the delivery of the deed, in disparagement of, limiting or destroying in part, the title of the grantee, who is also in possession of the premises. The case of Carleton v. Baldwin, 27 Tex. 573 is also cited, but that was a case in which the deed was attacked as fraudulent, and the court expressed the opinion that the exercise of some agency or trust in connection with the property would have the same effect as possession with reference to showing a prima facie case of fraud such as would permit the introduction in evidence of declarations of the grantor.
While it appears very clear to appellees that we are wrong, they have been unable to cite a single case directly in point, nor have we been able to find one. We believe it would be exceedingly dangerous to permit the introduction in evidence of such declarations, especially as in this case, when they do not purport to reproduce what was said by the grantor to the grantee, but merely the grantor’s understanding of the purpose she had in mind in making the deed.
No trust can be created by the declarations of the grantor made after the delivery of the deed, and yet by admitting such declarations in evidence the practical effect may be to permit the creation of the trust by such declarations. So far as this case is concerned, the conduct of the grantor in remaining on the premises with the grantee is thoroughly explained, and had no reference to the trust attempted to be shown, for that trust was not alleged, to exist in favor of the grantor, but of other parties, and we are convinced that to permit the introduction of the. declarations upon any technical theory, based upon the fact of the grantor’s remaining on the premises, would be wrong. In the case of McKnight v. Reed, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 204, 71 S. W. 318, it was held that declarations of a grantor made subsequent to the execution of deeds to his granddaughters, and subsequent to the delivery of the deeds to his daughter, to be held until his death, were not admissible for the purpose of showing that the land was given to the grantees as an advancement to be charged against their portion of their father’s estate. While the opinion fails to state that the grantor remained in possession of the land, it was contended upon motion for rehearing that such was the case, and the' testimony supported the contention.
We conclude that we erred in sustaining the contention that the judgment was erroneous in that it awarded appellees a foreclosure of the vendor’s lien. The mere fact that none of the notes had matured at the time the appellees’ last amended cross-bill was filed would not preclude the court from awarding appellees such relief under their prayer for general relief as they were entitled to under their pleadings at the date of the trial. The proposition of appellants submits the contention just considered, and we are limited to same. As all notes are now due, no question will arise upon another trial with regard to whether appellees, if they sustain their theory are entitled to ownership of that part of the indebtedness which is due.
In view of the fact that the judgment is reversed on account of the admission of certain testimony which was materially prejudicial to appellant, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the evidence or to announce any conclusion with reference thereto.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled, and also appellant’s motion.