Court Opinion

ID: 9833235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:33:06.398838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.769479
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In discussing Conn v. Terrell, 97 Tex. 578, 80 S. W. 608, it was said in original opinion that it was a direct proceeding by the owner of and resident upon urban property to compel the commissioner of the general land office to sell and award to him a section of land as additional to his urban property.
In the motion for rehearing our attention is directed to the fact that the case mentioned was a proceeding to compel the land commissioner to reinstate Conn as a purchaser of school land; a previous award to him having been canceled. The correction is now noted. The inaccuracy of statement'made in the original opinion is unimportant. The observations made upon the case are equally applicable to a proceeding to reinstate an award which had been previously canceled. In substance and effect, it was a proceeding to compel the commissioner to sell and award to Conn a tract of school land as additional *374to his urban property., The principle is the same whether the proceeding was to compel a sale and award in the first instance or to compel a reinstatement of a previously canceled award.
All questions presented in the motion for rehearing were fully considered and discussed in the original opinion. Our views are sufficiently indicated in that opinion, and we adhere to the view that it made a correct disposition of the various assignments.
We will add only this observation with respect to the contention that there was sufficient evidence to require submission of whether the deed to Eubank was intended ás a mortgage, namely: It may be conceded that there are some circumstances from which it might be surmised that such was the intention, notably the inadequate consideration. But inadequacy of consideration alone is insufficient. Pacts sufficient to- justify a suspicion or surmise do not at all measure up to the standard required to in-graft such a parol trust upon an absolute conveyance. See eases cited in original opinion and for facts held insufficient to show such a trust see Focke v. Buchanan, 59 S. W. 821; Muckelroy v. House, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 673, 52 S. W. 1038.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.