Court Opinion

ID: 9642958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:13:47.857819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:55.291792
License: Public Domain

HOLMES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
For taking part in the storming of San Antonio de Bexar in 1835, W. E. Howth was given a section of land by a grateful republic. The aged hero died in 1859, leaving a large estate which he fairly disposed of by will ;1 but, feeling a soldier’s pride in the Milam grant, he devised this section to his eldest son for life with remainder in fee to the latter’s eldest son, together with a succession of substitutionary estates upon failure of male issue in any of them. In so doing, he was well within his rights, as he violated no rule against perpetuities or legal restraints upon alienation. Nevertheless, his valid will is to be defeated, upon the theory that the particular estate was terminated by the conveyance of a greater interest than the life tenant owned, followed by adverse possession of the grantees thereunder for the statutory period.
I concur in the majority opinion, that the devise to appellant under the will created a valid contingent remainder; that appellees were not bona fide purchasers for value from the heirs, because the probate of the will was a proceeding in rem which was notice to all the world; and that they have no color of title which enabled.them to hold the fee by adverse possession under the three years statute of limitations; but I dissent from the holding that a remainderman may be deprived of his inheritance by the grantees of a life tenant who shelter themselves under the particular estate while maturing the title in fee by adverse possession against their cestui qui trust.
The appellees are not strangers to- the remainderman, but are in privity of estate with him, since they went into possession under deeds from the life tenant, and even here are pleading color of title under them in order to invoke the three years statute of limitations as to the fee. These deeds purported to pass a fee simple interest, but under a Texas statute2 they conveyed only *661a life estate and did not “defeat, impair or in any wise affect such remainder.”
These deeds, passing legally only a life interest, and peaceable, uninterrupted possession thereunder for more than twenty-five years, are the sole reliance of appellees’ claim to defeat the remainder. I do not say adverse possession, because the life tenant was still living, and, under the facts in evidence, the appellees, who became tenants per autre vie, could not hold adversely to the remainderman.
These deeds were not clouds upon the contingent future interest of appellant, and no court should have cancelled them as such. They were muniments of title which under the statute passed only the interest of the grantor, but they gave appellees the exclusive right to t1ie possession of the property for the life of the grantor. Since an immediate right to possession is necessary to maintain a suit in trespass to try title, since the life tenant has that exclusive right and the remainderman has no right of possession until the death of the life tenant, and since the life tenant is free to convey his interest but can give title to no more than he owns, it follows as the night the day that neither the possession of the life tenant nor of his grantees is adverse to the remainderman. Therefore, the possession was not adverse to appellant until July 31, 1930, the date of the death of the life tenant.3
The record i,n this case being singularly free from any effort by appellees or their predecessors to terminate the life estate, either by surrendering possession to appellant or by notifying him of their adverse claim, the contention is made (1) that the recordation of deeds to the fee gave him constructive notice of an adverse holding, and (2) that possession was not asserted under the life tenancy created by the will, but under deeds from all the heirs conveying not a life estate but a fee simple title.
As to the first proposition, it is well settled that a remainderman takes his title directly from the ancestor and not through the life tenant, and that a deed by a life tenant to a third person is no notice to a remainderman of any adverse claim. Therefore, the deeds from the younger Howth, made between 1878 and 1882, when the remainderman grew from nine to thirteen years of age, gave no notice to the latter of any adverse claim. In the recent case of Rae v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 366, the court held that an attempt by the life tenant to convey property and warrant a fee simple title is no notice to the remainderman, because recorded conveyances by the life tenant are not in the chain of title of the remainderman.4
The second contention, that possession was not asserted under the life tenancy created by the will, but under deeds from all the heirs conveying a fee simple title, overlooks the fact that those heirs took a contingent substitutionary estate in reversion to this very land, and that their purported deeds in fee simple were effective to pass only so much as they might lawfully convey, and did not operate so as to defeat, impair, or in any wise affect the remainder. Therefore, the appellees, their prede*662cessors in title, the younger Howth, the substitutionary reversioners, or so-called heirs (nominated descendants by the testator), all took under the will and were in privity of estate with the remainder-man.
A moment’s reflection as to the distinct classes of numerous estates carved out of his fee-simple title by' the testator will make this plain. After providing for a life estate to the first taker, there was devised to the latter’s eldest son a contingent future interest, indestructible by any rule of law defeating intent. Then came a succession of substitutionary estates providing finally, in case of a total failure of male issue, for a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds thereof equally among the testator’s descendants.
Never was property devised with more care, or more fortified against intestacy, and never was there a devise less liable to lapse for want of a taker. It is a palpable inaccuracy to speak of the heirs conveying a fee simple interest. They were the duly nominated descendants of the testator attempting to convey more than they owned, but in law effecting a transfer of only their substitutionary equitable reversion. There was no merger, because all of the estates were created by the same instrument, and a merger would defeat the will of the testator; there was no impairment of the remainder, because forbidden by the Texas statute; and there was no adverse possession, because of the trust relation between the parties.
The general rule seems to be that there is no legal way in which a life tenant can diminish the remainder; that he is a trustee or quasi-trustee, whose absolute possession cannot be adverse to that of the remainderman; that he cannot compel the remainderman to treat a life estate as terminated; and that the latter may waive his right to enforce a forfeiture and is entitled to a new right of entry upon the death of the life tenant. The latter may be enjoined from committing waste, but not from making valuable improvements. In some cases, a life estate may be terminated by a surrender which consists in yielding possession to the immediate reversioner or remainderman, but when, as here, there is a contingent remainder, it being uncertain until the happening of the contingency who will be entitled thereto, there can be no acceleration by premature determination of the particular estate.5 The appellant might have died before his father, in which event the remainder would have vested in another contingent taker.
Most of what has been said as to the law is elementary, and doubtless will not be denied; but I come now to the argument of the holding which evokes this dissent. It is said that there is a well-recognized exception in the law of Texas less favorable to remainders than the general principles applicable to possessory estates and future interests; that in Texas the jurisdiction is blended, and the remainder-man may bring an action in trespass to try title against those who are in possession, not under but in hostility to the life estate.
There is nothing exceptional in the procedure which permits one who has the right to' possession to bring an action against those who are in hostile possession of his property; but if it is meant to say that in an action of trespass to try title in Texas one may pray for a cancellation of a cloud upon his title, I submit that the point deals with remedies and not with rights. We are concerned here solely with rights and not with remedies. A remedy without a right is the shadow of justice, too insubstantial to defeat future interests. With no right to possession until the life tenant died, no right to cancel the muniments of appellees’ title, and no notice of the existence of either, appellant was remediless even in a blended jurisdiction of law and equity. He was guilty of no laches, as the owner of a contingent future interest, because he was not required to stand guard over the land or the records *663during the life tenancy. Without notice of a hostile claim being brought home to him, he only needed to await the inevitable death of the life tenant; and he had the right tp presume that the grantees of the life tenant were holding in trust for him, claiming under the Texas statute no greater estate than their grantor owned.’ It has been held, in Texas, that where a tenant for life under a will claims the title in fee, the remainderman may maintain a suit to construe the will and fix the status of the title (remove the cloud, if you please) ; but that such an action, if successful, would give no present right of possession. It holds further that one does not forfeit his life estate by asserting title to the fee adversely to those entitled to the remainder under the terms of a will creating both estates.6
It is further said that appellees concede the general rule to be as appellant contends, but insist that in Texas there is an equally well-settled exception to the effect that the estate of the remainderman will be lost by limitation when there is hostile possession, taken and maintained under a claim of right to full title, adverse to and in repudiation of the right to possession as life tenants.
Aside from the fact that there is no evidence in this record of such hostile possession and repudiation, other than the acceptance of, and going into possession under, fee-simple deeds from a life tenant who had acquired also the equitable title in reversion of his brothers and' sisters, descendants of the testator — this argument wholly overlooks the fact that, under the Texas statute, these deeds conveyed no greater interest than the life tenant and contingent equitable reversioners owned; and that there can be no acceleration of a remainder by reason of forfeiture or otherwise without the consent of the remainderman, who, in any event, has a new right of entry upon the death of the life tenant. The accumulation from the life tenant and reversioners of deeds limited in their legal effect by statute and maintaining possession thereunder per autre vie does not amount to repudiation of the life estate. We have seen that these deeds are not even color of title, under the laws of Texas, for more than a life interest, and that they are muniments of title for that interest.
Cases of cotenants are cited. They are easily distinguished. Cotenants have unity of possession or the right to possession, and when one cotenant ousts another, an action immediately accrues. A life tenant cannot oust the contingent remainderman, because the latter has no possessory interest. He is not in and cannot be put out of possession.
Even the alleged exception to the rule requires notice of the adverse possession to be brought home to the remainderman. There is no evidence in this case to show the slightest notice to appellant, a resident of New Jersey, approximately two thousand miles from the land. The opinion says he was charged with such notice, but we have seen that there was no constructive notice, since the appellant took directly from the testator and not from the life tenant.
In Barrett v. Crump, Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 672, cited contra in the opinion, the parties made an oral division of real property, followed by thirty years’ adverse possession. The widow surrendered to children two-thirds of deceased husband’s real estate, and accepted one-third as her entire interest, thereafter claiming it a's her own. The court held that the claim was inconsistent with that of homestead and life estates, and specific declaration of abandonment or renouncement of such limited claims was not necessary.
In Horan v. O’Connell, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W. 1048, also cited contra, a deed by the life tenant, followed by ten years’ adverse possession, was upheld because she was the surviving spouse with the right to sell the community estate to pay debts. The court held that a deed by heirs to their mother, upon the death of their father, conveying a life estate to avoid court procedure and to prevent a partition during her lifetime, did not prevent her from selling community property to pay community debts. What was said by the court, on a motion for rehearing, about repudiation of the life estate, was plainly limited to the particular facts of the case wherein the surviving spouse was exercising a right superior to the life estate.
In Crump v. Andress, Tex.Com.App., 278 S.W. 422, also cited ’contra, the widow began possession under a homestead claim, bought an independent title with her own *664money, and expressly notified her three children of her hostile claim solely under it. It was not controverted that, so long as a double claim existed, no adverse possession could be had by the widow. In the case at bar, the best that can be said for appellees is that they were holding under deeds from the life tenant conveying the fee.
In Tillotson v. Hill, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W. 603, also cited contra, the court said it was shown by indisputable evidence that J. W. Hill had known of the adverse claim for more than twenty years. In Humphreys v. Edwards, 89 Tex. 512, 36 S.W. 434, cited contra, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 89 Tex. 512, 36 S.W. 333, and referred to the latter’s opinion approving an instruction to the jury that knowledge must be brought home to plaintiffs that the widow claimed the entire title. The rest of what the court said ,.on this subject was dictum, but even it implies that there must be constructive notice to the remainder-man. In Luker v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 149, 150, cited contra, the court said: “The contention of appellants that appellees’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation must be overruled. The injury from a cloud on title is continuing, and the cause of action for its removal is likewise continuing and never barred while the cloud exists. Texas Co. v. Davis, 113 Tex. 321, 254 S.W. 304, 255 S.W. 601.” It is proper to add that title to land cannot be lost merely from a cloud on it.
I have previously distinguished the co-tenancy cases cited in the majority opinion. They are: Terry v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co., 5 Cir., 83 F.2d 843; Moore v. Knight, 127 Tex. 610, 94 S.W.2d 1137; Jones v. Siler, Tex.Com.App., 100 S.W.2d 352. There seems to be nothing to defeat the remainder in these or other Texas cases that have come to my attention. Even under the most favorable interpretation of these decisions in behalf of appellees, the vested interest of a contingent remainderman who stands ready to take possession upon the termination of the life estate cannot be lost by the adverse possession of a tenant per autre vie without actual or constructive notice of such adverse holding being brought home to the remainderman. Therefore, I think the judgment should be reversed.

 Each of his children was devised 800 acres of land in addition to sharing equally in liberal personal bequests.

 “All alienations of real i estate, made by any person purporting to pass or assure a greater right or estate than such person may lawfully pass or assure, shall operate as alienations of so much of the right and estate in such lands, tenements or hereditaments as such person might lawfully convey; but shall not pass or *661bar the residue ef said right or estate purporting to be conveyed or assured; nor shall the alienation of any particular estate on which any remainder may depend, whether such alienation be by deed or will, nor shall the union of such particular estate with the inheritance by purchase or by descent, so operate as to defeat, impair or in any wise affect such remainder.” Section 14, Act Feb. 5, 1840, article 1290, R.C.S.1925. See, also, Kennedy v. Pearson, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W. 280; Beaty v. Clymer, 32 Tex.Civ.App. 322, 75 S.W. 540; Bohrer v. Davis, 94 Neb. 367, 143 N.W. 209, L.R.A.1918D, 430 Ann.Cas.1915A, 992; Id., 96 Neb. 474, 148 N.W. 320, L.R.A.1918D, 430.

 Cook v. Caswell, 81 Tex. 678, 17 S.W. 385; Hensley v. Conway, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 416; State v. Dayton Lumber Co., 106 Tex. 41, 155 S.W. 1178; Adams v. Ramsey, 19 Tex.Civ.App. 294, 46 S.W. 265; 2 Tex.Jur. 117; 14 Am.St.Rep. 628 note; Griffin v. Reynolds, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 634, 636; 28 Tex.Jur. 63.

 See, also, Runge v. Gilbough, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W. 832, affirmed 99 Tex. 539, 91 S.W. 566, 122 Am.St.Rep. 659; Chace v. Gregg, Tex.Civ.App., 31 S.W. 76, affirmed 88 Tex. 552, 32 S.W. 520; Cochran v. Cochran, 43 Tex.Civ.App. 259, 95 S.W. 731; Morse v. Hackensack Savings Bank, 47 N.J.Eq. 279, 20 A. 961, 12 L.R.A. 62.

 Young v. Harris, 176 N.C. 631, 97 S.E. 609, 5 A.L.R. 477; American Nat. Bank v. Chapin, 130 Va. 1, 107 S.E. 636, 17 A.L.R. 304; Swann v. Austell, 5 Cir., 261 F. 465, certiorari denied 252 U.S. 579, 40 S.Ct. 344, 64 L.Ed. 726; Foreman Trust & Savings Bank v. Seelenfreund, 329 Ill. 546, 161 N.E. 88, 62 A.L.R. 201.

 Clark v. Cattron, 23 Tex.Civ.App. 51, 56 S.W. 99, writ of error denied.