Court Opinion

ID: 9832134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:39:18.658207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:42.677753
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant and appellees have each filed a motion for rehearing herein. The motion of appellant is overruled. In the opinion heretofore rendered in this ease, we stated that- appellees’ cross-assignments. of errors would not be considered, for the reason that it did not appear that they were filed in the court below. It has since been made to appear that said cross-assignments were properly filed in the lower court.
Said cross-assignments are to the effect, that the trial court erred in holding that a certified copy of the' sheriff's deed was admissible in evidence, the original not having been produced nor accounted for, and said deed not being proven up as at common law; and also that appellant failed to show any title in himself by reason of his failure to introduce in evidence any order of sale. We are inclined to believe that the first assignment is well taken;. but, aside from this, we sustain the second assignment of error, *1142which is conclusive Of the issue as- to appellant’s title to the tract Of land 45 by 75 varas recovered by him. [5] In order to show title in himself, it was necessary that he should put in evidence, not only the judgment and sheriff’s deed, but also the order of sale. Having failed to do so, the judgment should have been for appellees as to this tract, as well as for the other tract. Houssels v. Taylor, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 72, 58 S. W. 190.
[6] If Lewis Woods knew at the time that he signed the lease contract that it was a lease, he was induced to do so by the representation of the appellant that he had purchased the entire tract at the sheriff’s sale, and such is the contention of appellant herein. This was not true, and, however honestly appellant may have thought it was, such representation amounted to a legal fraud on his part. The act of Lewis Woods in signing said lease, if he knew what it was, was in fraud of the homestead rights of his wife. She knew nothing about it. Under such circumstances the statute of limitations never ran in favor of appellant. He showed no other title to the land.
Eor the reasons given in this supplemental opinion, in connection with the opinion here-inbefore rendered, appellees’ motion for a rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the lower court is reformed and here rendered for appellee as to all of the land involved in this suit.
Reformed and rendered.