Court Opinion

ID: 9833372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:39:44.50343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:02.081222
License: Public Domain

OÍT. REHEARING.
Plaintiffs in error contend that the title of R. H. Flanniken can not avail defendants as an outstanding title, for the reason that the same is an equitable title and defendants have failed to connect themselves therewith.
The record shows that William Brooks, the original grantee, conveyed the land in controversy to William Steel in 1835. Steel failed to record his title. In 1842 Brooks sold the land to R. H. Flanniken, who paid value therefor, and without notice of Brooks’ former conveyance to Steel. By virtue of our registration laws, article 4640, Revised Statutes, the deed to Steel, not having been recorded, and Flanniken being an innocent purchaser, was void as to Flanniken. By force of this statute and the facts shown, we think Flanniken took more than an equity in the land.
As stated in the case of Key v. La Pice, 88 Texas, 211, “the equity of the purchaser is made by the statutes of registration a legal right.”
We conclude that Flanniken acquired the legal title to the land. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled. .
Writ of error refused.