Court Opinion

ID: 3924255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:50:43.894862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.245439
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In order to prevent any misapprehension, which appellee seems to anticipate, as to the meaning of our opinion, we will say that the issues of ratification and limitation discussed are applicable only to that part of the cause of action which seeks to set aside and cancel the contract for fraud. If the deed of trust and note were given in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and statute, they would be, *Page 1109 
as between the parties, void; a ratification thereof would be subject to the same vice. The plaintiff could have defended a suit brought at any time to enforce them, and a suit to have the deed of trust declared void might be truly classed as a suit to remove cloud from title. But if this issue should be determined against the plaintiff, and he relies on the alleged fraud in inducing the subscription to secure a cancellation, a different situation is presented. The contract then would not be void, but merely voidable, and would be the subject of ratification. A judgment removing cloud from the title in such case would be a mere incident to the cancellation of the deed of trust, which would be a valid instrument until set aside for the fraud. The primary purpose of the suit in such event would be rescission and cancellation, and limitation applicable to that character of suit would apply and not the law of limitation of suits to remove cloud from title. Kennon v. Miller, 143 S.W. 988; McCampbell v. Durst, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 522, 40 S.W. 320; Ry. Co. v. Titterington,84 Tex. 218, 19 S.W. 472, 31 Am. St. Rep. 39.
With this additional statement the motion for rehearing is overruled.
HUFF, C.J., not sitting.