Court Opinion

ID: 9832170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:41:03.41376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:43.362917
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rebearing.
In O’Neal v. Busb & Tillar, 173 S. W. 869, tlie Supreme Court bolds that one in whom vests the legal title may pass the equitable title held by another, with the latter’s consent, by conveyance of bis own legal title. Likewise we think that one who bolds the record or paper title, though the instrument by which he purports to so hold is inoperative to vest the real or equitable title in him and divest the title out of his apparent grantor, may, by a conveyance of his apparL ent title, made with the consent and for the benefit of his grantor, who holds the real or equitable title, divest the title out of his grantor.
Upon the question of constructive notice of title or claim to title arising by virtue of possession by tenant, even though there has been no change in tenant after the execution of the instrument of conveyance by which the holder of possession claims, see Duncan v. Matula, 26 S. W. 638; Mattfeld v. Huntington, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 716, 43 S. W. 53; Smith v. James, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 54 S. W. 41.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.